Case Details: Bgr Energy Systems Ltd. v. State of U.P. - [2024] 165 taxmann.com 413 (Allahabad)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Saumitra Dayal Singh & Donadi Ramesh, JJ.
-
Shubham Agrawal for the Petitioner.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner was issued show cause notice by the department but no further notice was issued or date was fixed in the adjudication proceedings. Thereafter, the department passed an order under Section 73 of the GST Act, 2017. The petitioner filed writ petition against the order and contended that it was undergoing process of resolution before Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) but the same was not considered by the department.
High Court Held
The Honorable High Court noted that the petitioner had submitted reply to the notice and informed the department that it was undergoing a process of resolution before Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) and requested to issue appropriate notice and to grant time to seek permission of IRP to contest adjudication proceedings.
However, the department didn’t consider the request of the petitioner and passed order during pendency of IRP proceedings which was not sustainable. Therefore, it was held that the impugned order was liable to be set aside.
The post Order Passed During Pendency of IRP Proceedings Was Not Sustainable and to Be Set Aside | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.