# M/S Rajat Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd v. U.O.I. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 2 ILRA 363
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-02-27
- **Case number:** Writ Tax No. 2300 of 2024
- **Bench:** Shekhar B. Saraf, Vipin Chandra Dixit
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-rajat-infra-developers-pvt-ltd-v-u-o-i-ors-53137
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Civil law - The Uttar Pradesh Goods and
Service
Tax
Act,
2017-Section
83provisional attachment was made of the bank
account of the petitioner- objections of the
petitioner were dealt with by the respondent
authorities and the provisional attachment was
justified under Section 83 of the Act for a period
of one year-show cause notice has already been
adjudicated upon and order was passed u/s 74
of the Act- statutory alternative remedy to file
an appeal u/s 83 of the Act.

W.P. dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

M/s Radha Krishan Industries Vs St. of H.P.
reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 2114

## Text

2 All. M/S Rajat Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
363
initiated against the petitioner is not
justified in the eyes of law.

16. In the results, the writ petition
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
order dated 23.1.2024 passed by Additional
Commissioner, Grade -02 (Appeal ) -V,
State Tax Kanpur, respondent no. 1 and
order dated 20.12.2022 passed by Assistant
Commissioner, Sector 2 (Mobile Squad-4),
Kanpur, respondent no. 2, are hereby
quashed.

17. Any amount deposited by the
petitioner in the present proceedings shall
be refunded to him, in accordance with law,
expeditiously, preferably within a period of
two months from the date of producing a
certified copy of this order.
----------
(2025) 2 ILRA 363
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.02.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE VIPIN CHANDRA DIXIT, J.

Writ Tax No. 2300 of 2024

M/S Rajat Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd.
 ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ashish Srivastava, Atul Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Abrar Ahmad, Dhananjay Awasthi,
Parv Agarwal, R.V. Pandey

Civil law - The Uttar Pradesh Goods and
Service
Tax
Act,
2017-Section
83provisional attachment was made of the bank
account of the petitioner- objections of the
petitioner were dealt with by the respondent
authorities and the provisional attachment was
justified under Section 83 of the Act for a period
of one year-show cause notice has already been
adjudicated upon and order was passed u/s 74
of the Act- statutory alternative remedy to file
an appeal u/s 83 of the Act.

W.P. dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

M/s Radha Krishan Industries Vs St. of H.P.
reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 2114

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J.
&
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sitaram Yadav, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner; Sri Abrar Ahmad, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
no.1; Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
nos.2, 3 and 5 and Sri R.V. Pandey, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
no.4.

2. This is a writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India wherein the
writ petitioner is aggrieved by orders dated
July 8, 2024 and October 30, 2024 passed
by the respondent authorities.

3. The first order dated July 8, 2024 is
an order whereby provisional attachment
was made of the bank account of the
petitioner. Subsequent to passing of this
provisional attachment order under Section
83 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service
Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as
'the Act') the petitioner approached the
High Court and the coordinate Bench of
this Court vide order dated October 15,
2024 had directed the authorities to
consider the objections of the petitioner,
364 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and thereafter, pass a reasoned order in
accordance with law. Subsequent to the
same, objections were filed by the
petitioner and after granting opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner order dated
October 30, 2024 was passed.

4. Upon perusal of the said order it
appears that the said order is a reasoned
order that clearly indicates the factual
matrix of the petitioner having received the
Service Tax from the persons to whom he
provided services, but failed to deposit the
same with the Service Tax Department.

5. It is to be noted that subsequent to
the order of provisional attachment dated
July 8, 2024, a show cause notice was
issued by the department on July 24, 2024.
The proceedings under the said show cause
notice has also culminated into an order
passed under Section 74 of the Act dated
December 30, 2024. The relevant portion
of said order is provided below :-

"43. In view of the above
discussion and findings, I pass the
following order:
ORDER

[A]

(i) I confirm the demand of CGST
amounting to Rs.2,23,73,267/-(Rupees Two
Crores Twenty Three Lakhs Seventy Three
Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Seven
only) not paid by M/s Rajat Infra
Developers
Pvt.
Ltd.,
(GSTIN-
09AAFCR7861J2ZR).
545,
Lakhanpur,
Khyora Bangar, Vikas Nagar, Kanpur
Nagar-208001 during the period from July,
2017 to September, 2023 and order to
recover the same from them under Section
74(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 as discussed
in the foregoing paras.

(ii) I confirm the demand of SGST
amounting to Rs.2,23,73,267/-(Rupees Two
Crores Twenty Three Lakhs Seventy Three
Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Seven
only) not paid by M/s Rajat Infra
Developers
Pvt.
Ltd.,
(GSTIN-
09AAFCR7861J2ZR)
545,
Lakhanpur,
Khyora Bangar, Vikas Nagar, Kanpur
Nagar 208001 during the period from July,
2017 to September, 2023 and order to
recover the same from them under Section
74(1) of the UPGST Act, 2017 as discussed
in the foregoing paras.

(iii) I order to recover interest
from them at applicable rates under the
provisions of Section 50 of the CGST Act,
2017 and the corresponding provisions of
the UPGST Act, 2017, on the GST
demanded as mentioned in para (i) and
para (ii) above and discussed in the
forgoing paras.

(iv) I impose a penalty amounting
to Rs.2,23,73,267/- (Rupees Two Crores
Twenty
Three
Lakhs
Seventy
Three
Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Seven
only) under Section 74 of the CGST Act,
2017 read with Section 122(2)(b) of the
CGST Act, 2017, upon them in respect of
various contraventions of the CGST Act,
2017 as discussed in the foregoing paras.

(v) I impose a penalty amounting
to Rs.2,23,73,267/- (Rupees Two Crores
Twenty
Three
Lakhs
Seventy
Three
Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Seven
only) under Section 74 of the UPGST Act,
2017 read with Section 122(2)(b) of the
UPGST Act, 2017, upon them in respect of
various contraventions of the UPGST Act,
2017 as discussed in the foregoing paras.

(vi) I impose a penalty amounting
to
Rs.25,000/-
(Rupees
Twenty
Five
Thousand only) upon them Section 125 of
the CGST Act, 2017 upon them in respect
of various contraventions of the CGST Act,
2017 as discussed in the foregoing paras.

(vii)
I
impose
a
penalty
amounting to Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty
2 All. M/S Rajat Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
365
Five Thousand only) upon them Section
125 of the UPGST Act, 2017 upon them in
respect of various contraventions of the
UPGST Act, 2017 as discussed in the
foregoing paras.

[B] (i) I impose a penalty of
Rs.2,23,73,267/-
(Rupees
Two
Crores
Twenty
Three
Lakhs
Seventy
Three
Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Seven
only) upon Shri Prabhakant Shri Ram
Yadav, Director of M/s Rajat Infra
Developers
Private
Limited
(GSTIN09AAFCR7861J2ZR),
545,
Lakhanpur
Khyora Bangar, Vikas Nagar, Kanpur
Nagar, 208001 (UP) under Section 122
(1A), (Section 122 (3), Section 125 read
with Section 127 of the CGST Act, 2017.

(ii) I impose a penalty of Rs.
2,23,73,267/- (Rupees Two Crores Twenty
Three Lakhs Seventy Three Thousand Two
Hundred and Sixty Seven only) upon Shri
Prabhakant Shri Ram Yadav, Director of
M/s Rajat Infra Developers Private Limited
(GSTIN-09AAFCR7861J2ZR),
545,
Lakhanpur Khyora Bangar, Vikas Nagar,
Kanpur Nagar, 208001 (UP) under Section
122 (1A), Section 122 (3), Section 125 read
with Section 127 of the UPGST Act, 2017."

6. Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is in the process of taking
recourse of filing an appeal against the
order passed under Section 74 of the Act.

7. Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner has once again
raised objection with regard to the arbitrary
action resorting to provisional attachment
under Section 83 of the Act. He relies on
the judgement of M/s Radha Krishan
Industries v. State of Himanchal Pradesh
reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court
2114 wherein the Supreme Court had
categorically stated that the power under
Section 83 of the Act should neither be
used as a tool to harass the assessee nor
should it be used in a manner which may
have an irreversible detrimental effect on
the business of the assessee. In fact, the
Supreme Court went on to say that the
attachment of bank account and trading
assets should be resorted to only as a last
resort or measure. In the said Supreme
Court
judgement,
the
provisional
attachment was held to be bad in law as the
respondent authorities had not granted an
opportunity to the petitioner therein to file
objections and had not heard the petitioner.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that
the same was a breach of the mandatory
requirement
of
Rule
159(5)
of
the
Himanchal Pradesh Goods and Service Tax
Rules, 2017.

8. The present case is distinguishable
on facts to the factual matrix based on
which the order was passed in M/s Radha
Krishan Industries (supra). In the present
case,
subsequent
to
the
provisional
attachment, the petitioner had approached
this Court and the coordinate Bench of this
Court
had
directed
the
respondent
authorities to consider the objection filed
by the petitioner and grant an opportunity
of hearing. The petitioner availed of the
said opportunity and filed his objections
and
was
heard
by
the
respondents
authorities, which culminated subsequently
in the order dated October 30, 2024
wherein the objections of the petitioner
were rejected by the respondent authorities.
Furthermore, in the present the case show
cause notice issued under Section 74 of the
Act has also been adjudicated upon and a
final order passed under Section 74 of the
Act as provided above.

9. In light of the above facts and
circumstances of the case, we are of the
366 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
view that the objections of the petitioner
were
dealt
with
by
the
respondent
authorities and the provisional attachment
was justified under Section 83 of the Act
for a period of one year. The said period
would only come to an end on July 7, 2025.
In the meantime, since show cause notice
has already been adjudicated upon and
order was passed under Section 74 of the
Act, the petitioner has the statutory
alternative remedy under the law to file an
appeal against the same.

10. We have also examined and
perused in great detail the order passed on
October 30, 2024 that is indicating the
reasons for provisional attachment and the
manner in which petitioner has avoided
paying the Goods and Service Tax dues to
the coffers of the Government.

11. In light of the same, this writ
petition is dismissed with liberty granted to
the petitioner to approach the appellate
authority in accordance with law.
----------
(2025) 2 ILRA 366
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.02.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 42213 of 2024

Shanu Saxena & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P.& Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Anjeet Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.
Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 323,504,498-A & 506 - Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 - Section 3⁄4 -
Criminal Proceedings - Quashing of -
Taking cognizance of inefficiencies in
execution
of
judicial
orders,
Superintendent
of
Police
directed
to
appear
in
person,
submit
personal
affidavit - In compliance of order, officer
present, filed compliance affidavit, fails to
provide explanation for dereliction of duty
- Court summoned Government Advocate
seeking
clarification
-
Furthermore,
deeper examination of matter brought to
light serious procedural impropriety -
Private Secretary to Government Advocate
found responsible for committing fraud
upon court by unlawfully altering first
page of affidavit, thereby misrepresenting
identity of individual who dictated its
contents - The act, reflects attempt to
mislead judicial process and exercise
functions
beyond
legally
conferred
authority - Assumption of powers by
administrative officer, without any legal
sanction, matter of grave concern - Purely
clerical, does not extend to making
substantive changes to official documents,
particularly those submitted before court
of law - Government Advocate granted
time
to
file
affidavit,
interim
order
extended till next date of listing. (Para 2
to 5, 8, 10 11)

Application pending. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

Vijay Kushwaha & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & anr.,
Application U/s 482 No. 32395 of 2024
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)

1. The persistent failure of police
officers to diligently fulfil their statutory
obligations, particularly in the prompt
service of summons and execution of
judicial directives, significantly impedes
the smooth functioning of the legal system.
Their apathy and inefficiency contribute to