Case Law Details
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.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
1. Heard Sri Awadhesh Kumar Malviya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ankur Agrawal, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. Challenge has been raised to the adjudication notice issued under Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 dated 19.05.2023.
3. Submission is, though the impugned notice was preceded by the notice issued under Section 61(1) of the Act dated 19.05.2023, respondent no. 2 has failed to consider the reply furnished by the petitioner dated 1.09.2023.
4. Upon instructions received, learned Standing Counsel has informed that the petitioner had submitted his reply through offline mode. It is also admitted to the petitioner that against transaction value of Rs. 11,50,000/- referred to in the notice dated 19.05.2023, the petitioner had originally disclosed transaction value of Rs. 5,91,000/-. Further disclosure has been made of transaction worth Rs. 5,00,000/- upon receipt of notice dated 19.05.2023.
5. In such facts, it cannot be prematurely concluded that there is no dispute that may require adjudication.
6. The satisfaction required to be recorded in terms of Section 61(3) of the Act is primarily subjective. Unless inherent lack of jurisdiction or complete absence of relevant material is alleged and established, no interference may be warranted in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
7. In the present case, we do not find any jurisdictional or fundamental error in the proceedings as to compel us to intervene at this premature stage.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to respond to the adjudication notice which shall be dealt with and decided on its own merits without being prejudiced by the observation made in this order.
Order Date :- 3.1.2024
Author Bio
