No Interference by Writ Court for notice u/s 73 of UPGST Act unless there is Inherent Lack of Jurisdiction or Complete Absence of Relevant Material: Allahabad HC [Read Order]

In a significant ruling the Allahabad High Court observed that there cannot be any interference by the Writ Court for notice under Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (UPGST Act) unless there is inherent lack of jurisdiction or complete absence of relevant material.

The challenge has been raised to the adjudication notice issued under Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 dated 19.05.2023.

The Submission was that though the impugned notice was preceded by the notice issued under Section 61(1) of the UPGST Act dated 19.05.2023, respondent no. 2 has failed to consider the reply furnished by the petitioner dated 1.09.2023.

The Standing Counsel informed that the petitioner had submitted his reply through offline mode. It is also admitted to the petitioner that against transaction value of Rs. 11,50,000/- referred to in the notice dated 19.05.2023, the petitioner had originally disclosed transaction value of Rs. 5,91,000/-. Further disclosure has been made of transaction worth Rs. 5,00,000/- upon receipt of notice dated 19.05.2023.

A Division Bench comprising Justices Manjive Shukla and S.D. Singh observed 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, we do not find any jurisdictional or fundamental error in the proceedings as to compel us to intervene at this premature stage. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to respond to the adjudication notice which shall be dealt with and decided on its own merits without being prejudiced by the observation made in this order” the Bench concluded.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates