2024 (8) TMI 77 - HC - GST

Order passed u/s 73 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 - the petitioner informed respondent- adjudicating authority the need to issue appropriate notice and to grant the petitioner time to seek permission of the IRP to contest the adjudication proceedings - HELD THAT - No further notice was issued or date was fixed in the adjudication proceedings. The impugned order came to be passed within a fortnight therefrom. Also it is not in dispute that subsequently vide order dated 15.04.2024 passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, the order dated 03.04.2024 passed by the NCLT appointing the IRP has been set aside. As to the current status of the petitioner the petitioner is out of insolvency proceedings. Thus, no useful purpose would be served in keeping this petition pending or calling for a counter affidavit at this stage. Clearly once the petitioner was undergoing resolution before the Interim Resolution Professional and the fact of IRP appointment was communicated to the adjudicating authority, it may not have passed the impugned order during pendency of that CIRP - the writ petition is disposed of.

Summary

The High Court of Allahabad, consisting of Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh and Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh JJ., heard a case involving a challenge to an order dated 26.04.2024 passed by respondent no.2 under Section 73 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017. The petitioner had been issued a show cause notice on 10.04.2024, and despite submitting a partial reply on 12.04.2024, the respondent failed to issue any further notice or fix a date for adjudication. Subsequently, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal set aside the order appointing the Interim Resolution Professional, indicating that the petitioner was no longer undergoing insolvency proceedings. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the petitioner to file a detailed reply within two weeks, followed by fresh adjudication proceedings to be completed within two months. The court's decision was based on the fact that the petitioner had been undergoing resolution before the Interim Resolution Professional, and the adjudicating authority had not been informed of the change in circumstances before passing the order. The petitioner was given the opportunity to fully participate in the revised adjudication process.