9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 985X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Apex Court in Bachhaj Nahar Vs.Nilima Mandal and another [ 2008 (9) TMI 967 - SUPREME COURT] , it has been held that the petitioner cannot be permitted to argue the case without there being any pleading in support of his arguments. No rebuttal / rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner controverting the said assertions made in the counter affidavit and on the other hand on 16.10.2023, a statement was made on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner did not propose to file any rejoinder affidavit - Once the finding of fact, which has been recorded against the assessee has not been assailed in the present writ petition, the petitioner cannot be permitted to argue the case beyond the pleadings. No interference is called for by this Court in the impugned order. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. - Hon ble Piyush Agrawal, J. For the Petitioner : Suyash Agarwal For the Respondent : A.S.G.I.,Anant Kumar Tiwari,C.S.C. ORDER HON BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J. 1. Heard Mr. Suyash Agarwal for the petitioner, Mr. Rishi Kumar, learned A.C.S.C. for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. A.K. Tiwari for respondent no. 3. 2. The instant Writ Tax is being entertained by this Court in v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly been initiated against the petitioner. It was further argued that there was no intention to evade the payment of tax; once the authorities have not recorded any finding of fact in respect of any intention to evade the payment of tax, the impugned order is not justified in the eyes of law and same is liable to the quashed. 6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Division Bench judgement of this Court in Ram Dev Trading Company Vs. State of U.P. (Writ Tax No. 779 of 2017, decided on 30.1.2017), which was affirmed by the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (c ) No. 18781 of 2018 decided on 27.7.2018 . He further relied upon the Division Bench judgement of this Court in VSL Alloy (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Writ Tax No. 637 of 2018 decided on 13.4.2018) as well as Single Judge Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Citykart Retail Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.T. (Writ C No. 22285 of 2019 decided on 6.9.2022) and Shyam Sel and Power Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. (Writ Tax No. 603 of 2023, decided on 5.10.2023). 7. He further relied upon the circular CBEC/20/16/03/2017-GST dated 14.9.2018 issued by the revenue authority and referred Para 5 sub clause (f) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r in the impugned orders. He prays for dismissing the writ petition. 12. Rebutting to the said submission, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that findings of fact recorded against the petitioner have been assailed by the petitioner specifically in para 10, 11 and 12 of the writ petition. 13. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court has perused the records. 14. Admittedly, the goods were intercepted during transportation from New Delhi to Telangana at Agra, U.P. and after verification of the documents produced, it was found that part- B of the e- way bill was left blank thereafter a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner but the petitioner has not submitted any explanation for the same. But on deposit of amount of tax along with penalty, the goods were released on 27.8.2019. The petitioner has not submitted any explanation up to the stage of this Court that under what circumstances, part B of the e-way bill was not filled. The demand raised against the petitioner was challenged in the appeal but the same has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 31.8.2020. The petitioner has not assigned any reason, whatsoever, for not complying the provisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fendant had no opportunity to show that the relief proposed by the court could not be granted. When there is no prayer for a particular relief and no pleadings to support such a relief, and when defendant has no opportunity to resist or oppose such a relief, if the court considers and grants such a relief, it will lead to miscarriage of justice. Thus it is said that no amount of evidence, on a plea that is not put forward in the pleadings, can be looked into to grant any relief. (Emphasis supplied by this Court) 17. Further this Court in the case of Shri Shiv Prakash Vs. Additional District Judge (Matter under Article 227 No. 3423 of 2018, decided on 18.10.2019) Neutral Citation No. 2019: AHC:194707 has held as under :- 9. As per provisions of Order VI Rule 1, C.P.C., 'pleading' shall mean plaint or written statement. Order VI Rule 2 provides that every pleading shall contain only, a statement in a concise form of the material facts on which the party relies for his claim or defence, as the case may be, but not the evidence by which they are to be proved, and every pleading shall, when necessary, be divided into paragraphs, numbered consecutively, each allegation being, so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t has been held that the petitioner cannot be permitted to argue the case without there being any pleading in support of his arguments. 20. Moreover the findings of fact recorded in the impugned order has not been assailed by the petitioner in the present writ petition. Only general argument has been made that the findings recorded against the petitioner have been assailed in para 10,11, 12 of the writ petition. The said paragraphs are quoted hereunder :- 10. That it is relevant to submit here that as per Section 68 of the UPGST Act, the goods in question were being transported with all relevant documents like the Tax Invoice, GR and E-way Bill as provided under Rule 138 A of the Rules as such the seizure of goods and all consequential penalty proceedings u/s 129 (3) of the Act is wholly illegal, without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. 11. That the action u/s 129 of the Act may be initiated for violation of grounds mentioned u/s 122 of the Act whereas in the case in hand the Petitioner has not violated any of the clauses of Section 122 of the Act as such the orders dated 31.8.2020 and 2.8.2019 passed by respondent no. 1 and 2 respectively are wholly illegal, without jurisdic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
