Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Mgs Palace Vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others (Allahabad High Court)
Appeal Number : Writ Tax No. 1390 of 2023
Date of Judgement/Order : 03/01/2024
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Mgs Palace Vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others (Allahabad High Court)

Introduction: The Allahabad High Court, in the matter of Mgs Palace Vs State Of U.P. and 4 Others, addressed a challenge against an adjudication notice issued under Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, dated 19.05.2023. The petitioner, represented by counsel Sri Awadhesh Kumar Malviya, contested the notice, arguing that respondent no. 2 failed to consider their reply dated 1.09.2023, despite a prior notice under Section 61(1) of the Act.

Detailed Analysis: Upon scrutiny, it was revealed that the petitioner had responded through offline mode, and a discrepancy in transaction values was acknowledged. The notice mentioned a transaction value of Rs. 11,50,000/-, whereas the petitioner initially disclosed Rs. 5,91,000/-. Subsequently, an additional disclosure of Rs. 5,00,000/- was made upon receiving the notice. The petitioner contended that premature conclusions regarding the absence of a dispute requiring adjudication were unwarranted.

The Allahabad High Court, in its analysis, emphasized the subjective nature of satisfaction required under Section 61(3) of the Act. The court highlighted that interference through Article 226 of the Constitution of India is only warranted in the presence of inherent lack of jurisdiction or a complete absence of relevant material. No jurisdictional or fundamental errors were found in the proceedings that would compel intervention at this stage.

Conclusion: Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court, allowing the petitioner to respond to the adjudication notice. The court clarified that the case would be decided on its merits without prejudice to the observations made in the order. The order, dated 3.1.2024, upholds the limited scope of Article 226 interference in matters of UP GST adjudication, emphasizing the importance of jurisdictional and material considerations.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
August 2024
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031