#allahabadhighcourt Archives - Page 8 of 8

CASE TITLE: M/S Abhay Traders v. Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow and Another (WRIT TAX No. – 1265 of 2022)

DECIDED ON: 14.7.2023

CORAM: Hon’ble Siddhartha Varma,J. Hon’ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.

PETITIONER: – M/S Abhay Traders

RESPONDENT: – Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow and Another

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER: – Aloke Kumar

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT: – C.S.C.,Ankur Agarwal,Gopal Verma

INTRODUCTION:

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a show cause notice must include the grounds on which the action is being initiated. If the show cause notice is deemed adequate, the assessee has the option to respond and raise objections before the relevant authorities.

In the present case, the petitioner received a show cause notice under Section 74 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, stating that Input Tax Credit was incorrectly claimed by the petitioner based on purchases from a fictitious firm. The petitioner was required to provide reasons as to why tax and penalty should not be imposed on them.

FACTS:

The counsel representing the petitioner asserted that the show cause notice lacked clarity and was not in accordance with the law. They argued that it was solely based on the report from the Special Investigation Branch.

On the other hand, the counsel representing the Department contended that the proceedings had not been initiated yet, and the show cause notice served as an opportunity for the petitioner to respond and present objections. Additionally, they argued that further action based on the show cause notice could only be taken if it appeared to the proper officer that tax had not been paid or was underpaid, or if there were issues with Input Tax Credit due to fraudulent activities, willful statements, or concealment of facts. According to them, the writ petition was premature and should be dismissed.

CASE ANALYSIS AND DECISION

Based on the precedent set in the case of Gorkha Security Services Vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) [(2014) 9 SCC 105], the court emphasized that a show cause notice must explicitly state the charges against the individual under scrutiny, ensuring compliance with the principles of natural justice.

The Court observed that the show cause notice was not unlawful merely because the Petitioner was asked to provide reasons as to why tax and penalty should not be imposed, rather than seeking a response on the merits of the allegations. The show cause notice issued under Section 74 (1) of the 2017 Act was deemed sufficient as it contained all the necessary details and grounds for its issuance. Consequently, it cannot be invalidated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

As a result, the petition was resolved by directing the petitioner to submit their reply and objections, along with evidence related to the disputed transactions, to the concerned authorities within a month.

“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.”

Click to view the Judgement.

Written by- Mansi Malpani

CASE TITLE: Garima Singh v. Pratima Singh and Another [First Appeal No. 623/2022]

DECIDED ON: 27.7.2023

CORAM: Hon’ble Saumitra Dayal Singh, J. Hon’ble Vinod Diwakar, J.

INTRODUCTION:

The Allahabad High Court has affirmed the entitlement of the initial wife to submit an application under Section 11 (void marriages) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking the invalidation of her husband’s second marriage. The Court’s ruling emphasizes that the Hindu Marriage Act, as a socio-welfare law, aims to safeguard the rights of the first wife. An overly narrow interpretation of the Act’s provisions would be in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Smt. Garima Singh, the second wife, presented her case to the high court, contending that the first wife lacks the standing to file a case under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, against the second wife and her deceased husband, as only the parties directly involved in the marriage agreement can seek a declaration under Section 11. The division bench had to address the legal question of whether the first wife is entitled to file a case under sections 11 and 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking the annulment of her husband’s marriage with another woman.

CASE ANALYSIS AND DECISION:

The court ruled that the Hindu Marriage Act, as a social and welfare legislation, should be interpreted in a way that promotes the purpose of the law. It emphasized the need for a purposive interpretation when dealing with socio-welfare legislation.

The court disagreed with the reasoning of the Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Lakshmi Ammal v. Ramaswami Naicker and another. In that case, it was held that only parties directly involved in the marriage could file a Section 11 application. The court, however, stated that the first wife always has the option to file a suit to declare the husband’s second marriage as void.

The Court has now recognized that the objective of the Hindu Marriage Act is to eradicate the practice of polygamy, and therefore, it is essential to interpret and apply the law in a manner that achieves this objective. It emphasized the importance of adopting a pragmatic approach when interpreting provisions of socio-welfare legislations and subsequently dismissed the appeal filed by the Second Wife.

Click to view the Judgement.

Written by- Mansi Malpani

Best Lawyers in Bangalore

GST | SHOW CAUSE NOTICE MUST CONTAIN FOUNDATION OF CASE ON WHICH ACTION IS NECESSITATED: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

FIRST WIFE CAN FILE APPLICATION U/S 11 HINDU MARRIAGE ACT FOR DECLARATION OF HUSBAND’S SECOND MARRIAGE AS VOID: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT