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>High Court Emphasizes Fair Hearing in GST Act Challenge, Quashes Orders</h1> <h3>M/s V.S. Enterprises Versus State of U.P. And 2 Others</h3> M/s V.S. Enterprises Versus State of U.P. And 2 Others - 2022 (56) G.S.T.L. 287 (All.) Issues:1. Challenge to three orders dated 09.06.2021 passed by respondent nos. 2 and 3 under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.2. Jurisdictional issue regarding multiple adjudication orders for one tax period and dispute.3. Validity of orders passed without allowing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.Analysis:Issue 1:The petitioner challenged three orders dated 09.06.2021 issued by respondent nos. 2 and 3 under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The respondent no. 2 issued two notices for different periods, while respondent no. 3 issued another notice for a separate period. The petitioner argued that for one tax period and dispute, only a single adjudication order should be issued. The High Court entertained the writ petition and granted time for completion of instructions.Issue 2:The High Court considered the jurisdictional issue of multiple adjudication orders for overlapping periods. It was noted that the notice issued by respondent no. 2 covered the entire disputed period, including the periods covered by the other two notices. The Court observed that the order dated 09.06.2021 was passed ex-parte without providing the petitioner with a proper opportunity of being heard. The Government's extension of the reply submission period due to the COVID-19 pandemic was also taken into account.Issue 3:In light of the jurisdictional and procedural irregularities, the High Court disposed of the writ petition by quashing two orders and setting aside one. The orders dated 09.06.2021 for two periods were quashed, and the order for the remaining period was set aside and remitted to respondent no. 2 for fresh adjudication. The petitioner was directed to file a reply within a specified time frame, and further proceedings were to be conducted in accordance with the law to ensure a fair hearing.Overall, the High Court addressed the challenge to the multiple orders, emphasized the importance of providing a fair opportunity of hearing, and upheld the principles of natural justice in the adjudication process under the GST Act.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
