Jain Amar Clothing PVT LTD vs. State Of Haryana Through Additional Chief Secretary And Ors

Held

The High Court noted the specific stand of the respondents that the petitioner had not yet filed a reply to the show cause notice. The Court acknowledged the respondents' submission that if the petitioner submitted a reply within one week, it would be considered in accordance with law. The Court found no grounds for the continuance of the present proceedings, given this concession. It was held that the petitioner is at liberty to raise all available pleas in its reply. The writ petition was disposed of without any expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The operative direction was to consider the petitioner's reply if filed within one week.

Facts

The petitioner, Jain Amar Clothing Pvt Ltd, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh challenging a show cause notice (SCN) dated September 28, 2025, issued by respondent No. 2 under Section 74 of the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the SCN was mechanically issued to avoid statutory time limits and lacked complete details regarding the alleged difference in Input Tax Credit (ITC) availed. It was argued that the SCN did not provide base values for the derived differential amount. The respondents, represented by the State of Haryana, submitted that the writ petition was premature as the petitioner had not yet filed a reply to the SCN. They offered that if the petitioner submitted a reply within one week, it would be considered in accordance with law.

Key Issues

1. Whether the show cause notice dated 28.09.2025, issued under Section 74 of the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is legally sustainable given its alleged lack of complete details regarding the difference in ITC availed and the absence of base values for the derived differential amount? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the SCN was bereft of complete details of the purported allegations of difference in ITC availed and was mechanically issued merely to prevent the lapse of statutory time lines. They contended that the notice did not provide the base values under which the alleged difference was derived, making it unsustainable. Revenue's Arguments: The State of Haryana argued that the writ petition was filed prematurely as the petitioner had not yet filed its reply to the SCN. They submitted that if the petitioner filed a reply within one week, it would be considered in accordance with law, and all pleas could be raised before the authorities.