Allahabad High Court Sets Asides Adjudication Orders For Overlapping Periods

Allahabad High Court Sets Asides Adjudication Orders For Overlapping Periods

The Court felt that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the present petition pending or calling for counter affidavit

The Allahabad High Court has set aside adjudication orders passed by the Revenue Authorities since the periods in those orders overlapped each other and also on account of the COVID-19 pandemic.

A Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad, comprising Justices Naheed Ara Moon and Saumitra Dayal Singh, dealt with the matter titled M/s V.S. Enterprises v State of U.P. & Ors.

The Court did not go into the factual matrix of the matter and purely dealt with it on a legal and technical basis. Three notices were issued against the Petitioner – Company u/S 74 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which resulted in three adjudication orders against the Petitioner – Company.

The Petitioner – Company through this petition had challenged those three adjudication orders on the ground that there can only be a single adjudication order for one tax period and for one dispute.

The Respondent – Authorities accepted that a bona fide mistake was committed by passing those three orders, however, the Respondent submitted that it had and continued to have jurisdiction to make proper adjudication.

The Court considering the statement of the Respondent – Authorities, observed that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the present petition pending or calling for a counter affidavit.

The Court noted that these orders passed for the three periods were overlapping each other. The bench pointed out one notice dated 22 December 2020, which covered the entire period and dispute being sought to be adjudicated in the other two notices as well. It was observed that the order for the said notice was passed on 9 June 2021 but the Petitioner could not participate in the proceedings on account of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Court observed that the said order was clearly an ex-parte order since it was passed without allowing the due opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, especially considering the fact that the Government, through an official order, had extended the period for submitting replies and responses, up to 30 June 2021.

The Court, therefore, set aside the orders and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after affording the Petitioner reasonable opportunity of being heard.