M/S Mgs Palace v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Case note by CA Nikhil Gupta
Case overview
This Allahabad High Court decision concerns GST statutory provision - Section 61(1); GST statutory provision - Section 61(3); GST statutory provision - Section 73. The retained release ledger records the outcome as Dismissed and classifies the matter under Demand & Adjudication.
Facts and procedural background
Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 1390 of 2023
Petitioner :- M/S Mgs Palace Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadhesh Kumar Malviya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Krishna Kant Tiwari
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J. Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.
1. Heard Sri Awadhesh Kumar Malviya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ankur Agrawal, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
Issues before the Court
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J. Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.
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.
Court's analysis and findings
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.
Decision and relief
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 A. Mandhani
(Manjive Shukla, J.) (S.D. Singh, J.)
2024-01-03T18:23:45+0530 High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Ratio and practical significance
The binding effect flows from the court's operative reasoning reproduced below, read in the context of the pleaded facts and statutory provisions. Users should not generalise the result beyond materially comparable facts.
- Map the operative reasoning to the exact GST provision and procedural stage.
- Confirm whether a later review, appeal, SLP or subsequent judgment affects reliance.
- Preserve the official case number, decision date and neutral citation in professional work.
Full judgment text
Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 1390 of 2023
Petitioner :- M/S Mgs Palace Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadhesh Kumar Malviya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Krishna Kant Tiwari
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J. Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.
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 A. Mandhani
(Manjive Shukla, J.) (S.D. Singh, J.)
2024-01-03T18:23:45+0530 High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Finin2min Q&A
What court decided this case?
Allahabad High Court
What was the case number?
WRIT TAX No. 1390 of 2023
When was the decision delivered?
2024-01-03
Which GST provisions are identified in the case?
GST statutory provision - Section 61(1); GST statutory provision - Section 61(3); GST statutory provision - Section 73
What was the recorded outcome?
Dismissed
Is the complete judgment text available here?
Yes. This page includes a faithful local rendition of the full text recovered from the issuing court source.
Should this page substitute professional advice?
No. Verify the official citation and later history before professional reliance.
Who authored the Finin2min case note?
CA Nikhil Gupta.