Mahavir Polylast Pvt. Ltd. v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 7(2); GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 112; GST statutory provision - Section 112(8)

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: Under the statute, a Second Appeal lies before the Appellate Tribunal. However, the same has not been constituted so far, therefore the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant petition. Operative disposition: "1. Special leave is granted. Heard the counsel for the parties. After going through the record of the case it appears that one of the cases involving an identical point has already been admitted by the High Court but another identical petition was dismissed by the same High Court. This, therefore, creates a very anomalous position and there is a clear possibility of two contradictory judgments being rendered in the same case by the High Court. In these circumstances, we allow this appeal and set aside the order dismissing CWJC No. 183 of 1985. This appeal is remanded to the High Court to be heard along with CWJC No. 5728 of 1984 which is…
• 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

"17. The first contention on behalf of the State that it became impossible for the State to issue notice under Section 7(2) of the new Act within two years of the expiry of the period of return is unsound on principle and facts. The maxim lex non cogit ad impossibilia means that the law does not compel a man to do that which he cannot possibly perform. In the present appeals, the applications were moved in the High Court for stay of proceedings. The respondents challenged the validity of the Act, and, therefore, asked for an injunction restraining the State from taking proceedings under the Act. At no stage, did the State ask for variation or modification of the order of injunction.

It is well known that if it is brought to the notice of a court that proceedings are likely to be barred by time by reason of any order of injunction or stay the court passes such suitable or appropriate orders as will protect the interest of the parties and will not prejudice either party. Even when certificate to appeal to this Court was granted on August 1, 1963, the State did not ask for any order for stay of operation of the judgment. That is quite often done. For the first time, on August 10, 1964 the State filed an application for stay of operation of the judgment of the High Court.

The State did not take steps at the appropriate time. This Court on October 28, 1964 granted an interim order staying the operation of the High Court judgment. The interim order was made absolute on January 28, 1965 with certain conditions. The State cannot take advantage of its own wrong and lack of diligence. The State cannot contend that it was impossible to issue any notice within the period mentioned in Section 7(2) of the new Act. The State did not endeavour to obtain appropriate orders to surmount the difficulties by reason of the injunction against taking steps within the time contemplated in Section 7(2) of the new Act. The State is guilty of default.

“The instant petition has been filed challenging the order of the First Appellate Authority under the U.P. Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017. Under the statute, a Second Appeal lies before the Appellate Tribunal. However, the same has not been constituted so far, therefore the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that while filing First Appeal, the petitioner had deposited 10% of the disputed tax liability as provided under sub-section (6) of Section 107 of the Act. He submitted that an appeal before the Tribunal would be competent only if 20% of the remaining amount of tax in dispute is deposited in addition to the amount deposited before the First Appellate Authority. He submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit 20% of the remaining amount of tax in dispute.

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

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

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

(ii) The statutory relief of stay, on deposit of the statutory amount, however in the opinion of this Court, cannot be open ended. For balancing the equities, therefore, the Court is of the opinion that since order is being passed due to non- constitution of the Tribunal by the respondent- Authorities, the petitioner would be required to present/file his appeal under Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act, once the Tribunal is constituted and made functional and the President or the State President may enter office. The appeal would be required to be filed observing the statutory requirements after coming into existence of the Tribunal, for facilitating consideration of the appeal.

(ii) The statutory relief of stay, on deposit of the statutory amount, however in the opinion of this Court, cannot be open ended. For balancing the equities, therefore, the Court is of the opinion that since order is being passed due to non- constitution of the Tribunal by the respondent-Authorities, the petitioner would be required to present/file his appeal under Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act, once the Tribunal is constituted and made functional and the President or the State President may enter office. The appeal would be required to be filed observing the statutory requirements after coming into existence of the Tribunal, for facilitating consideration of the appeal.

So also we mean no disrespect to the High Court in stressing the need for self-discipline on the part of the High Court in passing interim orders without entering into the question of amplitude and width of the powers of the High Court to grant interim relief. The main purpose of passing an interim order is to evolve a workable formula or a workable arrangement to the extent called for by the demands of the situation keeping in mind the presumption regarding the constitutionality of the legislation and the vulnerability of the challenge, only in order that no irreparable injury is occasioned. The Court has therefore to strike a delicate balance after considering the pros and cons of the matter lest larger public interest is not jeopardized and institutional embarrassment is eschewed."

"1. Special leave is granted. Heard the counsel for the parties. After going through the record of the case it appears that one of the cases involving an identical point has already been admitted by the High Court but another identical petition was dismissed by the same High Court. This, therefore, creates a very anomalous position and there is a clear possibility of two contradictory judgments being rendered in the same case by the High Court. In these circumstances, we allow this appeal and set aside the order dismissing CWJC No. 183 of 1985. This appeal is remanded to the High Court to be heard along with CWJC No. 5728 of 1984 which is pending hearing."

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 Mahavir Polylast Pvt. Ltd. v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others concerns issue and context: under the statute, a second appeal lies before the appellate tribunal. however, the same has not been constituted so far, therefore the petitioner has approached this court by way of the instant petition. operative disposition: "1. special leave is granted. heard the counsel for the parties. after going through the record of the case it appears that one of the cases involving an identical point has already been admitted by the high court but another identical petition was dismissed by the same high court. this, therefore, creates a very anomalous position and there is a clear possibility of two contradictory judgments being rendered in the same case by the high court. in these circumstances, we allow this appeal and set aside the order dismissing cwjc no. 183 of 1985. this appeal is remanded to the high court to be heard along with cwjc no. 5728 of 1984 which is… 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. 1397 of 2023.

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 “Remanded / fresh adjudication” 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: Under the statute, a Second Appeal lies before the Appellate Tribunal. However, the same has not been constituted so far, therefore the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant petition. Operative disposition: "1. Special leave is granted. Heard the counsel for the parties. After going through the record of the case it appears that one of the cases involving an identical point has already been admitted by the High Court but another identical petition was dismissed by the same High Court. This, therefore, creates a very anomalous position and there is a clear possibility of two contradictory judgments being rendered in the same case by the High Court. In these circumstances, we allow this appeal and set aside the order dismissing CWJC No. 183 of 1985. This appeal is remanded to the High Court to be heard along with CWJC No. 5728 of 1984 which is… Its practical value lies in the way the Allahabad High Court connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 7(2); GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 112; GST statutory provision - Section 112(8)—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 7(2); GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 112; GST statutory provision - Section 112(8) and the decision date 2023-12-07; 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 Mahavir Polylast Pvt. Ltd. v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others, the proceeding is WRIT TAX No. 1397 of 2023, and the decision is dated 2023-12-07. 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 Ajay Bhanot,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 7(2); GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 112; GST statutory provision - Section 112(8). 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 Remanded / fresh adjudication. 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 7(2) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 107 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 112 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 112(8) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

• M/S. VALLABH TEXTILES v. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CENTRAL TAX GST, DELHI EAST AND ORS — Delhi High Court · Remanded / fresh adjudication
• Deepanshu Srivastava v. Union of India through Department of Revenue, DGGI Lucknow Zonal Unit — Allahabad High Court · Remanded / fresh adjudication
• M/S Modern Steel v. Additional Commissioner And Another — Allahabad High Court · Remanded / fresh adjudication
• Mohd. Akib v. Union of India and Others — Allahabad High Court · Allowed / set aside

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