Case Reference
M/s Jay Prakash Thekedar v. Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Mahoba
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Chief Justice’s Court
Writ Tax No. 135 of 2025
Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:28300-DB
Date of Judgment: 28.02.2025
Relevant Provision: Section 74(9), CGST/UPGST Act, 2017
Category: GST Demand / Suppression of Facts in Writ Petition
Facts (Para 1–4)
The petitioner challenged an order dated 03.08.2022 passed under Section 74(9) of the GST Act for October 2019, December 2019, and January 2020, raising demands. The petitioner, however, had earlier filed four writ petitions (Writ Tax Nos. 1513–1516 of 2022) against similar orders, which were dismissed on 22.12.2022 on the ground of alternative remedy. Despite this, the petitioner filed the present writ after more than two years, without disclosing these earlier proceedings. Further, the petitioner’s GST registration had been cancelled with effect from 05.02.2024, which was also not disclosed in the petition.
Questions Before Court
-
Whether the petitioner could maintain the writ petition despite suppression of earlier dismissed writ petitions challenging similar orders.
-
Whether concealment of cancellation of registration rendered the petition non-maintainable.
Court’s Observations (Para 5–6)
The Bench held that once earlier writ petitions had been dismissed on availability of an alternative remedy, the present petition was not maintainable. The petitioner’s plea of ignorance of the impugned order was contrary to record since earlier writs arose from the same orders. Non-disclosure of earlier dismissal and cancellation of registration amounted to suppression of material facts. The Court emphasized that litigants must approach with clean hands and cannot secure relief through misrepresentation.
Judgment / Verdict (Para 7)
The writ petition was dismissed with costs of ₹20,000, payable to the Legal Services Committee within one month. If not paid, recovery could be initiated as per law. The Court reiterated that petitions filed with unclean hands cannot be entertained.
Table of Cases Referred
| Case | Court’s Verdict | Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| Writ Tax Nos. 1513, 1514, 1515, 1516 of 2022 (Petitioner’s own cases) | Dismissed on 22.12.2022 due to availability of alternative remedy | Non-disclosure of these writs showed suppression of facts and misrepresentation in present case |
Between Fine Lines
For trade and industry, this judgment highlights that GST demands raised under Section 74(9) must be contested through statutory remedies. Filing repetitive writ petitions without disclosing earlier litigation invites dismissal with costs. Businesses must maintain transparency and good faith in litigation; suppression of material facts can severely damage their case and credibility.
Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”
