JUDGMENT

Heard Sri Aditya Pandey, counsel for the petitioner Sri Ankur Agarwal, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The present petition has been filed against the order dated 17.8.2021 passed by respondent no.2 (Joint Commissioner Circle) Commercial Tax, Zone-1, Kanpur, passed under Section 74 (9) of the U.P. GST Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), whereby tax Rs. 10,59,85,433.90, interest Rs. 7,13,96,434.00 and penalty Rs. 10,59,85,433.90 totalling to Rs. 28,33,67,301.80 have been imposed. Though, normally the rule of alternative remedy may have been enforced against the petitioners, the present petition was entertained, on the contention that there was no surviving jurisdiction to pass that order inasmuch as, the adjudication proceedings arose from an earlier proceedings under Section 67 of the Act that led to an order dated 18.2.2019 being passed under Section 130 (2) of the Act making the same allegations as have arisen in the adjudication proceedings giving rise to the present petition. The order passed under Section 130 (2) dated 18.2.2019 was set aside in entirety by the First Appellate Authority vide its order dated 25.6.2020. That order has long attained finality.

3. Upon exchange of affidavits, it could not be disputed by the learned Standing Counsel that the order dated 18.2.2019 passed under Section 130 (2) came to be set aside by the First Appellate Authority vide its order dated 25.5.2020. Neither that order was challenged nor any new facts were discovered as may have led to any fresh proceedings being drawn up, for adjudication.

4. Then, it is also not disputed that the fact allegations giving rise to the adjudication proceedings impugned in the present petition, remained the same as had been considered by the First Appellate Authority in its order dated 25.6.2020. No other or fresh material came into existence as may have given rise to any situation in fact or in law to initiate an adjudication proceedings.

5. While proceedings under Section 67 and Section 74 are distinct in scope and purpose, at the same time, the essential facts found non-existant in the proceedings under Section 67 would have a material bearing on proceedings under Section 74 of the Act drawn up on the same basis. In the present case, since the substratum of the charge in the proceedings under Section 74 of the Act stood wiped out in entirety, occasioned by the First Appellate order dated 25.5.2020 passed with reference to proceedings under Section 130 of the Act, there survived no jurisdictional fact as may have given rise to the adjudication proceedings, on the same facts.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 17.8.2021 passed by respondent no.2 and the impugned notices dated 9.4.2021 & 25.5.2021 issued by respondent no.2 are, hereby, set aside.

7. While cost may have been imposed, as pursued by learned Standing Counsel, no order is being passed as to costs.