Case Law Details

Case Name : Integrated Tech 9 Labs (P) Ltd. Vs State of U.P. & Ors. (Allahabad High Court)
Appeal Number : Writ Tax No. 1492 of 2018
Date of Judgement/Order : 27/11/2018
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : All High Courts (4516) Allahabad High Court (269)

Integrated Tech 9 Labs (P) Ltd. Vs State of U.P. & Ors. (Allahabad High Court)

In case we allow the petitioner to challenge the said order in this writ petition it would amount to filing of successive writ petitions for one of the causes of action involved in the earlier writ petition. It is settled law that successive writ petitions for the same cause of action are not maintainable and all questions which could have been taken or ought to have taken and if not decided would be deemed to have been adjudicated or declined.

FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.B. Tripathi, special counsel for the respondents.

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 31.1.2018 passed by the Assistant Commissioner U.P. Goods and Service Tax, Mobile Squad, Fifth Unit, NOIDA respondent No. 3 and has prayed that he may not proceed any further in pursuance thereof.

The petitioner had previously filed Writ Tax No. 142 of 2018 M/s. Integrated Tech9Labs Private Limited vs. State of U.P. challenging the order of detention/ seizure. The said writ petition was amended and challenge was also made to the order dated 31.1.2018 which has been challenged in this petition. The aforesaid writ petition was ultimately dismissed but without adjudicating the validity of the aforesaid order.

In view of the dismissal of the above writ petition the matter with regard to challenge to the order dated 31.1.2018 as has been made in this petition has come to an end. In case we allow the petitioner to challenge the said order in this writ petition it would amount to filing of successive writ petitions for one of the causes of action involved in the earlier writ petition. It is settled law that successive writ petitions for the same cause of action are not maintainable and all questions which could have been taken or ought to have taken and if not decided would be deemed to have been adjudicated or declined.

This apart the seized goods of the petitioner have already been released after deposit/ submission of security of the amount specified in the order under Section 129(3) in accordance with provision of Section 129(1) of the Act making the matter final as provided under Section 129(5) of the Act.

Accordingly we do not find any substance in this petition and dismiss this petition with liberty to petitioner to take the course to the appropriate remedy as may be available in law against the order dismissing the earlier petition if so desired.

Download Judgment/Order

More Under Goods and Services Tax

Posted Under

Category : Goods and Services Tax (8642)
Type : Judiciary
Tags : goods and services tax (7087) GST (6688) high court judgments (4837)

Leave a Comment

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