9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 1310 - HC - GSTChallenge to review application - petition filed by the petitioner did not arise from proceedings under Section 129 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - Once the Supreme Court had caused of effect of disposal of Writ Tax No.1635 of 2018, the consequential order passed by this Court had been forced on it, in view of deemed disposal caused by the earlier order of the Supreme Court. The main writ proceedings having been thus disposed of by the Supreme Court, the review sought of the order of this Court is misconceived. If at all, remedy lies elsewhere. The review application is rejected.
Issues Involved:
The issue involves the review application pressed on the ground that the petition filed did not arise from proceedings u/s 129 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 but from proceedings u/s 64 of the U.P. GST Act. The main contention is regarding the applicability of the Supreme Court's order in Special Leave Petition (C) No.25291 of 2019. Judgment Summary: Issue 1: Applicability of Supreme Court's Order The review application was pressed on the ground that the petition did not arise from proceedings u/s 129 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017, but from proceedings u/s 64 of the U.P. GST Act. The applicant argued that the order of the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (C) No.25291 of 2019 is not applicable. The error in the order of the Court was highlighted and requested to be rectified. Issue 2: Deemed Disposal by Supreme Court The order under review was not passed independently but to give recognition to the Supreme Court's order dated 22.11.2019. The Supreme Court's order had the effect of disposing of all writ petitions pending before the High Court during the relevant period. The consequential order passed by the Court was forced upon it due to the deemed disposal by the Supreme Court. The review sought of the Court's order was deemed misconceived as the main writ proceedings had been disposed of by the Supreme Court. In conclusion, the review application was rejected as the main writ proceedings had been disposed of by the Supreme Court, and the consequential order passed by the Court was in line with the Supreme Court's deemed disposal. The remedy, if any, was suggested to lie elsewhere.
|
