# M/s Tanishka International, Rampur U.P v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2023) 3 ILRA 23 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2023-01-30 - **Case number:** Writ Tax No. 847 of 2022 - **Bench:** Rajesh Bindal, C.J. J.J. Munir - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-tanishka-international-rampur-u-p-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49949 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Sri Abhinav Mehrotra, Sri Satya Vrata Mehrotra, Sri Rahul Agarwal, Sri Ashish Bansal, Sri Shubham Agarwal, Sri Ankur ## Text 3 All. M/s Tanishka International, Rampur U.P. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 23 16. As far as compensation part is concerned, the Tribunal has considered the case of the deceased and has granted compensation of Rs.1,65,000/- with interest at the rate of 12%. The Tribunal while awarding the above compensation has considered the income of the deceased to be Rs. 10,800/- per month, applied multiplier of 15, deduction 1/6th for life uncertainties and granted Rs.30,000/- under non pecuniary heads. The Tribunal accepted that the deceased was 30 years of age and left behind him his young widow, parents and unmarried sister who were dependent on him. In the year of accident i.e. 1989, the multiplier would be 17. Rather the Tribunal has not added any amount towards future loss of income. In all, it can be said that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. However, grant of 12% interest would be sufficient as it is submitted that only sum of Rs. 1,65,000/- without interest has been deposited. The U.P.S.R.T.C. to deposit the amount within 12 weeks from today. Interim relief stands vacated forthwith. 17. In view of the above, this appeal stands dismissed under Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as though notices were ordered, steps were not taken for more than 30 years. 18. This Court is thankful to Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant for getting this old matter disposed of. ---------- (2023) 3 ILRA 23 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.01.2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C.J. THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J. Writ Tax No. 847 of 2022 M/s Tanishka International, Rampur U.P. ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Ram M. Kaushik, Sri Pranjal Shukla, Ms. Priyanka Midha Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Ankur Agarwal, Standing Counsel Civil Law - Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017-For initiation of proceedings-a notice u/Rule 142(1A) was not issued-which provided for communication of details of any tax, interest and penalties as ascertainedsubsequent reminder will not cure inherent defect in proceedings-impugned order quashedliberty to initiate frsh inquiry. W.P. allowed. (E-9) List of Cases cited: 1. Gulati Enterprises Vs Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs & ors., 2022 U.P.T.C. (Vol. 111) - 1271 2. M/s Skyline Automation Industries Vs St. of U.P. & anr., Writ Tax No.1512 of 2022 (Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Bindal, C.J. & Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.) 1. Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated February 23, 2021 (DRC-07) Annexure-2 to the writ petition passed by respondent No.2 under Section 74(9) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). 2. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of 24 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES the provisions of Rule 142(1A) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules) as existing at the time of initiation of the proceedings against the petitioner before it was amended on October 15, 2020, before passing any order under Section 74 of the Act, a show cause notice in Part A of FORM GST DRC-01A is required to be issued. It is only thereafter that the jurisdiction is vested with the Competent Authority to pass order. In the case in hand, notice in Part A of FORM GST DRC-01A having not been issued, any subsequent proceeding will be without jurisdiction as the petitioner did not have fair opportunity to respond. 3. In support of the argument, reliance was placed on a Division Bench judgment of Delhi High Court in Gulati Enterprises v. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs & others, 2022 U.P.T.C. (Vol. 111) - 1271 and order dated January 2, 2023 passed by this Court in Writ Tax No.1512 of 2022, titled as M/s Skyline Automation Industries v. State of U.P. and another. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, while not disputing the fact that notice in Part A of FORM GST DRC-01A was not issued, submitted that subsequent reminders had given fair opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to place his case before the authority concerned, which he failed to avail of. The impugned order now passed is appealable under Section 107 of the Act. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, present writ petition deserves to be allowed, as admittedly for initiation of proceedings against the petitioner a notice as provided for under Rule 142(1A) of the Rules in Part A of FORM GST DRC-01A was not issued, which provided for communication of details of any tax, interest and penalties as ascertained by the officer. Any subsequent reminder will not cure inherent defect in proceedings initiated against the petitioner. Similar view has been expressed by the Delhi High Court in Gulati Enterprises' case (supra) and this Court in M/s Skyline Automation Industries' cases (supra) wherein also in identical facts pertaining to a case prior to the amendment of Rule 142(1A) of the Rules with effect from October 15, 2020, the impugned show cause notice was set aside and the matter was remitted back to authority concerned to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law. 6. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated November 10, 2022 is quashed. However, with liberty to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law. ---------- (2023) 3 ILRA 24 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.02.2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. SUNITA AGARWAL, J. THE HON'BLE VIPIN CHANDRA DIXIT, J. Writ Tax No. 1086 of 2022 Rajeev Bansal ...Petitioner Versus U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Abhinav Mehrotra, Sri Satya Vrata Mehrotra, Sri Rahul Agarwal, Sri Ashish Bansal, Sri Shubham Agarwal, Sri Ankur