9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 1257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wal, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri Manu Ghildyal, learned counsel for the Revenue and; learned Standing Counsel for the State. Challenge has been raised to the three orders, all dated 09.06.2021 passed by the respondent nos. 2 and 3 (annexed as Annexure nos. 3, 6 and 10 to the writ petition). Briefly, it has been submitted that the respondent no. 2 issued two notices under Section 74 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the responders. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that under scheme of the UP GST Act only one order of adjudication could have been passed for a tax period. In the present case, three notices have been issued for overlapping period which are wholly without jurisdiction. Simultaneously, orders have been passed in all three cases by two different authorities which again are wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce, however, it is respondent no.2 who had and continues to have jurisdiction to make proper adjudication. In view of the fair statement made by learned counsel for the Revenue, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the present petition pending or calling for counter affidavit. Undisputedly, three periods for which the orders had been passed are overlapping. Notice dated 22.12.2020 was is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hearing to the petitioner. In view of the above, present writ petition is disposed of with the following terms: (i) the orders dated 9.6.2021 passed by respondent no.2 for the period September 2017 to December 2017 and the order dated 9.6.2021 passed by respondent no.3 for the period November 2017 are quashed. (ii) So far as the order dated 9.6.2021 passed by respondent no. 2 for the period Ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
