M/S Jalsa Resorts Thru. Director Rajendra Singh And Another v. State Of U.P. Tax Deptt. Thru. Prin. Secy. Govt. U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. And Others

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 107

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: The present petition has been filed impugning the order dated 20.10.2022 passed by Assistant Commissioner, Grade-2 (Appeal), Judicial Division-III, Lucknow in ZD091121007477M/ZD0910220669953. Reported disposition:
• Which factual, statutory and procedural conditions controlled the requested relief?
• How did the forum apply the governing provisions to the evidence and procedural history recorded in this case?

Material facts and procedural background

2. The present petition has been filed impugning the order dated 20.10.2022 passed by Assistant Commissioner, Grade-2 (Appeal), Judicial Division-III, Lucknow in ZD091121007477M/ZD0910220669953.

3. The said appeal was filed by the petitioner namely, M/S Jalsa Resorts(India) Private Limited situated near Khurdahi Bazar, Sultanpur Road, Lucknow under Section 107 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 against the order dated 11.11.2021 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Sector-12, Lucknow whereby, tax penalty and interest on amount of Rs.48,90,000/- was imposed on the petitioner.

4. The petitioner's premises were inspected by the Special Investigation Branch on 06.12.2017. The said resort is also used for organizing marriages and other functions. On the basis of the report submitted by the Special Investigation Branch, the notice under Section 74 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was issued to the petitioner demanding Rs.48,96,000/- amount of tax penalty and interest. The petitioner did not replied to the show cause notice. The petitioner also did not produce the relevant documents for assessing the correct tax from July, 2017 to March, 2018.

6. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said ex-parte assessment order, filed the appeal before the opposite party No.2-Additional Commissioner, Grade-2, (Appeal)-III, State Tax, Lucknow.

8. It was said when the search was made by the Special Investigation Branch on 06.12.2017, the petitioner was not well and he was admitted in a hospital and all the relevant documents were with the accountant and therefore, the relevant documents could not produced before the Special Investigation Branch, who conducted the raid on 06.12.2017. It is relevant to mention here that if the petitioner was not in a position to produce the relevant documents at the time of the raid by the Special Investigation Branch, nothing prevented him to produce all the relevant documents before the Assessing Authority in pursuance to the show cause notice issued to him. The petitioner never submitted the relevant documents before the Assessing Authority and the assessment order was an ex-parte order.

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

1. Heard Shri Vaibhav Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Shri Sanjay Shareen, learned counsel for the State and go through the record.

Rs 38,56,680/-. I do not find any substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the assessment order is based on presumption. The appellate authority has examined each and every document submitted by the petitioner as well as the documents recovered by the Special Investigation Branch.

Revenue / respondent submissions

The judgment does not separately label the respondent’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

Loose papers were in respect of duty chart of the employees. There was no detail of inward supply and outward supply in the loose paper and, therefore, the appellate authority was of the view that because of these loose papers, no solid conclusion can be drawn. The petitioner had accepted before the appellate authority that in the financial year concerned, he had received the taxable amount Rs. 43,75,059.46/- on which, he had paid Rs. 3,70,229/- each for State G.S.T. and Central G.S.T. From the entries, as found in the diary recovered by the Special Investigation Branch, it was noticed that the petitioner had received much more advance than it was shown in the returns. From the documents recovered from the resort by the Special Investigation Branch, it was noticed that the petitioner had received Rs.17,95,000/-, whereas in the return he has shown advance of Rs. 3,73,983.05/- only.

Operative decision and relief

The operative relief must be read from the final paragraphs of the complete packaged judgment.

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with M/S Jalsa Resorts Thru. Director Rajendra Singh And Another v. State Of U.P. Tax Deptt. Thru. Prin. Secy. Govt. U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. And Others concerns issue and context: the present petition has been filed impugning the order dated 20.10.2022 passed by assistant commissioner, grade-2 (appeal), judicial division-iii, lucknow in zd091121007477m/zd0910220669953. reported disposition: The proposition cannot be separated from the judgment’s facts, the governing statutory version, the forum’s jurisdiction, and the exact relief recorded in WRIT TAX No. 206 of 2022.

For working-paper purposes, the decision should be cited only after matching the material facts and reading the passages under the judgment-grounded record above. The editorial outcome label “Disposed” is a navigation aid; it does not replace the operative order or explain every issue in a multi-issue case.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant when a file raises the same central question identified in the source headnote: Issue and context: The present petition has been filed impugning the order dated 20.10.2022 passed by Assistant Commissioner, Grade-2 (Appeal), Judicial Division-III, Lucknow in ZD091121007477M/ZD0910220669953. Reported disposition: Its practical value lies in the way the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 107—to the procedural posture and evidence before it.

The authority level is High Court. That affects persuasive or binding weight, but authority level alone is never enough. Territorial jurisdiction, statutory period, the identity of the challenged order, and later appellate treatment must all be checked before the case is used in advice, a submission, or litigation strategy.

Practitioner action points

• Begin with the complete judgment and mark the paragraphs supporting the exact proposition relied upon.
• Match the statutory version of GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 107 and the decision date 2023-05-01; do not assume the current text is identical.
• Compare the notice, assessment, appeal or other procedural sequence with the chronology recorded in this case.
• Verify the stated later-history status and any review, appeal, SLP, curative or rectification proceedings before citation.
• Record why the client’s evidence is materially similar, and also record any fact capable of distinguishing the result.

Does this case match your facts?

Detailed reliance and distinction analysis

Identity check. Confirm that the cited cause title is M/S Jalsa Resorts Thru. Director Rajendra Singh And Another v. State Of U.P. Tax Deptt. Thru. Prin. Secy. Govt. U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. And Others, the proceeding is WRIT TAX No. 206 of 2022, and the decision is dated 2023-05-01. These fields are taken from the judgment record and should appear exactly in the citation note.

Bench check. The judgment identifies the coram as Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.. A later order by another bench, a larger bench, or a higher forum may alter the weight or interpretation of the proposition.

Provision check. The source associates the dispute with GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 107. The practitioner should place the historical statutory text next to the current text and identify every amendment, proviso, explanation, rule or notification that could change the analysis.

Fact check. The source issue is not a free-standing abstract rule. It arises from the concrete record summarized above. A reliable application note should list the common facts, the different facts, and whether each difference affects jurisdiction, admissibility, limitation, burden, computation or relief.

Remedy check. The recorded result is Disposed. Where a matter is remanded, set aside, partly allowed, or disposed with directions, the exact operative language is more important than a binary winner/loser label.

History check. The current closure state is REVIEW_APPEAL_SLP_SUBSEQUENT_TREATMENT_CHECK_PENDING. If that state is pending, the page does not assert that no later case exists. It means the check remains open and must be completed at the point of professional reliance.

Section / provision impact

• GST statutory provision - Section 74 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 107 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

• VSA TRADING PVT LTD v. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER CGST AND ANR — Delhi High Court · Disposed
• M/s R. Gupta Metal Store through Proprietor Mahesh Chand Gupta v. Commissioner, CGST Delhi North — Delhi High Court · Disposed
• M/S MOMS CRADLE PRIVATE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. — Delhi High Court · Disposed
• MS RS TRADING CO v. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CGST & ORS. — Delhi High Court · Disposed

Related Finin2min resources

• Case Law Hub
• Search all 792 judgments
• Explore Appeals & Limitation

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_TEXT_SANITIZED_RENDITION · Repository status: PUBLISH_READY