Without challenging the findings, the petitioner cannot expand their case beyond the original pleadings: Allahabad High Court
Title: M/S Millennium Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs Additional Commissioner Grade-2 (Appeal) – I State Tax, Noida and 2 Others
Date of Decision: 18th October 2023
CORAM: Hon’ble Piyush Agrawal, J.
Introduction
The present review seeks to re-examine the judgment rendered in case 2023: AHC:201258, which was delivered on 18th October 2023 by Hon’ble Piyush Agrawal, J. The original judgment dealt with a Writ Tax matter involving M/S Millennium Impex Pvt. Ltd. as the petitioner and the Additional Commissioner Grade-2 (Appeal) – I State Tax, Noida, along with two others as the respondents. The petitioner challenged an order dismissing their appeal against the imposition of tax and penalty. The primary issue revolved around the seizure of goods due to an alleged technical lapse in the e-way bill.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, M/S Millennium Impex Pvt. Ltd., is a registered company dealing in metal seated zero leakage Ball Valves. They had made an outward supply of certain goods to NTPC Ltd., Ramagundam Super Thermal Power Station, which were being transported from New Delhi to Telangana via Agra, Uttar Pradesh. During transportation, the goods were intercepted by one of the respondents. It was discovered that a part of the e-way bill was left blank, leading to the imposition of tax and an equal amount of penalty. The petitioner challenged these actions, which were upheld by the first respondent.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
In the original judgment, the Court considered various arguments presented by both parties. The petitioner contended that there was no intent to evade tax, and the seizure of goods due to a minor technical issue in the e-way bill was unjust. They cited previous judgments and a circular dated 14th September 2018 to support their case.
The respondents, on the other hand, argued that the seizure and penalty were justified since the e-way bill issue was in contravention of the law. They emphasized that the petitioner had not provided any explanation for the blank part B of the e-way bill.
However, in the review, it is essential to note that the judgment in question raised a fundamental procedural concern. The petitioner’s arguments, as laid out in the original judgment, were based on their appeal grounds, which failed to explicitly challenge the findings of fact in the impugned order.
The Court referred to established legal principles, including the need for a party to provide relevant facts and evidence in their pleadings, and the importance of not expanding the scope of the case beyond the pleadings. It also highlighted that no rebuttal or rejoinder affidavit had been filed by the petitioner to address the assertions made by the respondents in their counter affidavit.
Ultimately, the Court concluded that without a proper challenge to the findings of fact recorded against the petitioner in the original judgment, the petitioner could not argue the case beyond the pleadings. The judgment in the original case was upheld, and the review was dismissed accordingly.
Review Conclusion:
The review of the judgment (2023: AHC:201258) reiterates the importance of adhering to established legal procedures, emphasizing the need for parties to plead and prove their case within the scope of their pleadings. The Court’s decision in the original judgment, dismissing the petitioner’s claims, is upheld in this review.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Tarishi Verma