Title: M/S Millennium Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner Grade-2 (Appeal) – I State Tax, Noida And 2 Others
Citation: [WRIT TAX No. – 721 of 2020
Decided on: [WRIT TAX No. – 721 of 2020
Coram: Justice Piyush Agrawal
Introduction
The petitioner in this writ petition challenged the impugned order wherein the seizure of the goods was held to be valid. An argument was raised by the counsel for petitioner raised before the court that there was not intention to evade tax in this circumstance. However, it was noted that the petitioner nowhere mentioned this argument in his writ petition, hence, he cannot be allowed to raise such argument before the court. The Allahabad High court in this matter came to the conclusion that the petitioner cannot be permitted to argue the case without there being any pleading in support of his arguments.
Facts of the case
The petitioner is a registered company and is involved in the business of supply of supreme quality of metal seated zero leakage Ball Valves and purchaser of Ball Valve, Diaphragm Valves in bulk. The petitioner was supplying the said goods from New Delhi to Telangana via Agra, U.P. , where the same was intercepted. After physical verification of the goods, it was found that part B of the e-way bill accompanying with the goods, was not filled on which notice was issued proposing to impose tax @ 18 %. On deposit of impugned tax along with penalty, the goods were released and an order was passed for the penalty order under Form GST MOV 09 under Section 20 of IGST read with Section 129 (3) of CGST Act observing that part B of e-way bill was not filled, hence the seizure of the goods was valid. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached this court.
Court’s observation and analysis
The Allahabad High Court, in this matter has observed that no explanation was granted by the petitioner when a show cause notice was issued to him regarding the part- B of the e- way bill which was left blank. Even when the goods were released, he did not provide any explanation that under what circumstances, part B of the e-way bill was not filled. Further, he has also not assigned any reason for not complying the provisions under Rule 138.
The counsel for petitioner raised an argument before the court that there was not intention to evade tax in this circumstance. However, it has been noted that the petitioner has nowhere mentioned this argument in his writ petition, hence, now he cannot be allowed to raise such argument before the court.
The court referred to the Supreme Court judgement of Bachhaj Nahar Vs.Nilima Mandal and another, (2008) 17 SCC 491, wherein it was held,
When there is no prayer for a particular relief and no pleadings to support such a relief, and when defendant has no opportunity to resist or oppose such a relief, if the court considers and grants such a relief, it will lead to miscarriage of justice. Thus it is said that no amount of evidence, on a plea that is not put forward in the pleadings, can be looked into to grant any relief.
Further reference was also made to the case of Shri Shiv Prakash Vs. Additional District Judge (Matter under Article 227 No. 3423 of 2018, decided on 18.10.2019) Neutral Citation No. 2019: AHC:194707, wherein it was held that a party cannot make out a case on the basis of an evidence for which he/ she has laid no foundation in the pleadings. It is fairly well settled that no amount of evidence can prove a case for a party who has not set up the same in his/ her pleadings. Again in the case of Bharat Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and others,
(1988) 4 SCC 534, the Supreme Court held that when a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter-affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the counter- affidavit, as the case may be, the court will not entertain the point.
Taking into account all the above mentioned judgements, the Allahabad High court in this matter came to the conclusion that the petitioner cannot be permitted to argue the case without there being any pleading in support of his arguments. Hence, the present writ petition failed on the above ground and was dismissed.
“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- Amrita Rout
