Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:35145-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 901 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Jindal Communication Respondent :- State of Uttar Pradesh and 4 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Niraj Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I., Saumitra Singh (CGC), Amit Mahajan, Ankur Agarwal (SC) Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, aggrieved of show cause notice dated 27.05.2024 and final order dated 08.08.2024 whereby notice under Section 73 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short 'the Act') on account of difference in GST turnover and PAN turnover, was issued and a demand to the tune of Rs.76,11,305/- has been created respectively. 2. Submissions have been made that petitioner firm is duly registered under the Act since 15.10.2019 and is in the business of Telephone Sets and Sim Card. Another firm under the name and style of M/s Jindal Marketing Company which was pre existing, migrated from VAT regime to GST regime, which firm was engaged in the business of trading of wholesale FMCG (biscuits). The show cause notice dated 28.12.2021 was issued to the petitioner Jindal Communication on the ground that Bank details were not updated. Whereafter on 29.01.2022, the registration was cancelled with effect from the same date. It is submitted that in January, 2025, the petitioner was informed about passing of the final order dated 08.08.2024 and the demand raised therein. When the petitioner checked the portal, he became aware of the issuance of the notice and passing of the final order. 3. Submissions have been made that the notice under Section 73 of the Act for the period from April, 2019 to March, 2020, alleged a difference of turnover to the extent of Rs.3,84,40,935.81. It is submitted that the issue apparently arose on account of the fact that the registration of two firms of the petitioner, i.e. Jindal Communication and Jindal Marketing Company are both registered through the same PAN number and while in relation to Jindal Marketing Company, the petitioner had filed all the returns based on the identical turnover as reflected in the show cause notice, for the present petitioner, i.e. Jindal Communication, the respondents were seeking the same turnover and tax over it. On coming to know of the same, the petitioner immediately moved application seeking rectification under Section 161 of the Act, however, the application came to be rejected as barred by limitation. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the present petition has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents based on the material produced by the petitioner, indicating the return filed in relation to Jindal Marketing Company wherein the return etc. have been shown identical to the difference which was alleged in relation to the petitioner firm, i.e. Jindal Communication, is not in a position to dispute the plea raised by the petitioner regarding issuance of show cause notice and passing of the final order on account of the fact that both the firms were registered under the GST through the same PAN number. 6. In view of the above fact situation, the issuance of show cause notice and raising of the demand against the petitioner firm cannot be sustained. 7. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. 8. The show cause notice dated 27.05.2024 and final order dated 08.08.2024 (Annexure Nos. 6 and 8 to the writ petition) are quashed and set aside. Order Date :- 10.3.2025 RK (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad