TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Dismissal of Petitioner's Relief Request for SGST & CGST - Procedural Compliance Emphasized</h1> <h3>Shri Rameshwar Lal Foods Pvt. Ltd. Thru Amit Agarwal Director Versus State Of U.P. Sachivalaya Thru Addl. Chief Secy And Another</h3> Shri Rameshwar Lal Foods Pvt. Ltd. Thru Amit Agarwal Director Versus State Of U.P. Sachivalaya Thru Addl. Chief Secy And Another - TMI Issues involved:Challenge to constitutional validity under section 16 (2) (c) of the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017; Bypassing statutory remedy under Section 107 of the U.P. Goods and Services Act, 2017; Granting interim relief and stay on demand of SGST, CGST, and penalty; Requirement of notice under Rule 1-A Order XXVII of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Granting time for filing counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit.Analysis:The judgment by the High Court of Allahabad involved several key issues. The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity under section 16 (2) (c) of the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, bypassing the statutory remedy provided under Section 107 of the U.P. Goods and Services Act, 2017. The court admitted the writ petition for final hearing after considering the arguments presented by both parties.Regarding the interim relief sought by the petitioner, the court referred to the law laid down by the Apex Court in a specific case and concluded that no case was made out to grant interim relief or pass a blanket order of stay. The court highlighted the amounts in question, including SGST amounting to Rs. 37,41,282.00, CGST amounting to Rs. 37,41,282.00, and penalty amounting to Rs. 7,48,257, which were subject to the dispute.Additionally, the court addressed the procedural aspect of issuing a notice under Rule 1-A Order XXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It was noted that a notice is required to be issued either to the Attorney General or to the Advocate-General before granting a declaration about the invalidity of a provision by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the court directed the issuance of a notice to the learned Advocate General.Furthermore, the court granted six weeks' time to the learned counsel for the respondents to file a counter affidavit, with an additional two weeks thereafter granted to the petitioner to file a rejoinder affidavit if necessary. The case was listed for further proceedings after eight weeks, allowing both parties sufficient time to present their arguments and evidence before the court.
TaxTMI 