M/S FAST TRACK SERVICES v. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
WTAX/4894/2025 · 2025-10-14
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 189304 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 189304 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 4894 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard Shri Aryan Mishra, holding brief of learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ankur Agarwal, learned counsel for the revenue.
2. Present petition has been filed for the following relief:
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari setting aside the impugned order dated 17.02.2025 (Annexure No.1), passed by the Respondent No.2 under Section 73(9) of the Act for the Financial Year 2020-2021; (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari setting aside the SCN dated 27.11.2024 issued by the Respondent No.2 u/s 73(1) of the Act for the Financial Year 2020-2021."
3. Submission is, the impugned order was preceded by an order passed on 02.09.2024 under Section 74 of the U.P.G.S.T. Act 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). That has been confirmed in appeal. Recovery proceedings are pending.
4. Notwithstanding the validity of the earlier proceedings, Adjudicating Authority has initiated another proceeding vide impugned notice dated 27.11.2024 issued under Section 73(2) of the Act, on the self-same reasons and self-same grounds.
5. Accordingly the present petition stands disposed of with the direction in case, the petitioner may furnish fresh/supplementary reply within a period of three weeks from today, we expect that the authority shall pass Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajay Kumar Yadav, Ayush Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. M/S Fast Track Services .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s)
fresh reasoned order keeping in mind the above noted facts and objections may be raised with respect to the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority in view of the earlier order passed by the same authority under Section 74 of the Act on the same issue. Adjudicating Authority may remain mindful of the fact that if the fact issues and dispute are same for the same tax period, it may remain impermissible in law to pass two separate two orders on the same issues thereby creating two demands for one set of transactions. October 15, 2025 Prakhar WTAX No. 4894 of 2025 2 (Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRAKHAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad