M/S SHWETA v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER STATE TAX DIVISION-2 MIRZAPUR AND 2 OTHERS
WTAX/646/2025 · 2025-02-26
Arun Bhansali, Kshitij Shailendra
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 21567 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 21567 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:27873-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 646 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Shweta Respondent :- Deputy Commissioner State Tax Division-2 Mirzapur and 2 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chhaya Gupta,Sujeet Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Priyanka Midha, Abhishek Ghosh Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the orders dated 04.02.2025 and 09.01.2025 (Annexure Nos. 1 and 2) whereby the respondents have passed order in original and raised demand. 2. Submissions have been made that the petitioner has approached this Court by filling Writ-Tax No. 2057 of 2024 against a show cause notice issued by the respondents wherein an interim order was granted by this Court and, therefore, the respondents were not justified in passing the orders impugned and raising demand. 3. A perusal of the order dated 23.11.2024 passed in Writ-Tax No. 2057 of 2024, which was against the show cause notice, would reveal that the following directions were granted by the Court:
"In the meanwhile, assessment pursuant to the show cause notice, annexure-1 to the writ petition, may be made by the authority, however, demand, if any raised, shall not be enforced during the pendency of the writ petition."
4. A perusal of the above, reveals that the Court has left it open for the authorities to pass the order of assessment and raise demand, however, directed that the same shall not be enforced during the pendency of the writ petition. 5. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the respondents were
not justified in passing the order of assessment and raising the demand as otherwise they are bound to follow the direction, i.e. not to enforce the demand. 6. In view thereof, we do not find that the petitioner was required to question the validity of the assessment order and the demand notice by filing a separate writ petition. The said orders can very well be brought on record of the pending writ petition, i.e. Writ- Tax No. 2057 of 2024. 7. Consequently, the petition stands disposed of. 8. The petitioner would be free to bring on record of the pending writ petition the orders impugned filed as Annexure Nos. 1 and 2.
Order Date :- 27.2.2025 RK/Pkb (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad