9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (1) TMI 503 - HC - GSTValidity of adjudication notice issued under Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - respondent no. 2 has failed to consider the reply furnished by the petitioner dated 1.09.2023 - HELD THAT - 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. In the present case, there are no jurisdictional or fundamental error in the proceedings as to compel us to intervene at this premature stage. The writ petition is dismissed.
Issues: Challenge to adjudication notice u/s 73 of UP Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
In the case, the petitioner challenged the adjudication notice issued under Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 dated 19.05.2023. The petitioner contended that although a prior notice was issued under Section 61(1) of the Act, the respondent failed to consider the reply submitted by the petitioner. It was revealed that the petitioner had initially disclosed a transaction value of Rs. 5,91,000/-, but later disclosed an additional transaction worth Rs. 5,00,000/- upon receipt of the notice dated 19.05.2023. The court noted that premature conclusions regarding the absence of a dispute requiring adjudication should not be made hastily. The satisfaction required under Section 61(3) of the Act is subjective, and unless there is an inherent lack of jurisdiction or a complete absence of relevant material, interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not be warranted. In the present case, the court did not find any jurisdictional or fundamental error in the proceedings that would compel intervention at the premature stage. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed, allowing the petitioner to respond to the adjudication notice, which would be dealt with and decided on its own merits without prejudice from the observations made in the order.
|
