TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
The purpose of writing this series with 10 articles by spending time, energy as well as efforts is only to spread awareness amongst tax officers who pass orders that even though, in general, around 99.99% of the cases which are challenged by way of writ in jurisdictional high courts are simply remanded or rejected without imposing any cost, there are some cases which attract strictures/ cost/ comments by the high court. The intention is not to hurt any one or find fault but to spread awareness so that such cases stop at one stage.
The High Court of Allahabad (Chief Justice Bench) had an occasion to come across one such case under UPVAT ACT on 28/05/2025 in writ tax 2586/2025 in the matter of M/S LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER -2025 (6) TMI 4 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Though orders are passed under UPVAT Act, it is to be noted that the same officer is dealing GST cases as well since 01/07/2017. The case is discussed in the following paras.
The adjudicating officer has passed the order in original on 23/03/2021. Aggrieved by the above order, petitioner approached Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Noida and the Appeal was allowed on 31/01/2023 by way of remand. When the appeal was allowed by Additional Commissioner, the adjudicating officer has simply passed the order on 26/03/2025 which is exactly the same one as that 23/03/2021.
The best part of this case is that even rectifications which were carried out subsequent to 23/03/2021 were ignored and the order dated 26/03/2025 appears to be a cut and paste order of OIO dated 23/03/2021. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner approached high court at Allahabad by way of writ.
It may be mentioned here that Jurisdictional High Courts are handling not only writ tax matters but there are several other writs as well. The High Court have cases on several other laws other than TAX LAWS. Prior to 30/06/2017, as CESTAT was taking care of Customs, Excise and Service Tax laws, the writs filed under indirect tax laws were not a big burden on the high courts. As on date, as GSTAT is not functional, Supreme Court has already sought the current status on GSTAT vide their order dated 13/12/2024 in the matter of Team computers (P) Limited in SLP Civil 29276 of 2024 in para 6. This is HIGH TIME that order being passed which may attract serious comments by High Court must STOP and GSTAT must be functional at least in 2025 itself.
Coming back to Lifestyle case, the observations of the high court are very serious. When a higher authority or higher court remands a matter for reconsideration by adjudicating authority, instructions on considering the submissions of the taxpayer, allowing personal hearing and passing a New Order which is different from the original OIO are all required even without specific mention in the remand order. In case a remanded matter is again confirmed EXACTLY in the same manner with that of ORIGINAL OIO, what is the purpose of remand. Will not this practice end in a vicious circle which has no end?.
The bench headed by Chief Justice has rightly observed in para 9 their findings on this case which is reproduced for spreading this information. 9. The manner of dealing with the matter on remand by the
Assessing Authority is ex facie contrary to the requirements on remand and are essentially in dereliction of his duty to act in a manner which may reflect his application of mind to the issue before him. The manner in which the Assessing Authority has dealt with the matter, clearly reflects non application of mind and a totally mechanical exercise has been undertaken in passing the orders impugned.
To add further, the closing remarks of the order reads 14. Looking to the conduct of the Assessing Authority, a copy of this order be communicated to the Principal Secretary, State Tax, Government of Uttar Pradesh, who would look into the conduct of the Assessing Authority and take appropriate measures in accordance with law.
This article is concluded with the message that this series will end with 10 articles and the intentions of writing these articles are that Adjudicating Authorities as well as First Appellate Authorities may kindly pass orders in future in such a manner that it does not attract any adverse comments later by the high courts.