M/S Guru Kirpa Steels vs. State Of Punjab And Another
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Guru Kirpa Steels, filed a writ petition seeking a stay on recovery proceedings initiated by a notice dated February 13, 2025. This notice was a consequence of an order dated July 15, 2019, passed by the Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-State Tax Officer, Mansa. The petitioner's appeal against the initial order was dismissed by the Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) on February 17, 2020. As the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Tribunal was not constituted, the petitioner could not appeal the appellate order and thus approached the High Court. The petitioner had paid the requisite pre-deposit as per Section 112(8) of the CGST Act and in accordance with Circular No. 224/18/2024 dated July 11, 2024.
Held
The Court held that the writ petition was rendered infructuous. This was based on the stand taken by the respondents in their reply. The respondents admitted that the petitioner had deposited the requisite pre-deposit as per Section 112(8) of the PGST Act. They further clarified that the impugned recovery notice dated February 13, 2025, was issued inadvertently because the fact of the pre-deposit being made was not known to the deponent at that time. Crucially, the respondents confirmed that, in view of Circular No. 224/18/2024 dated July 11, 2024, the recovery of the remaining amount stands stayed by the respondent department, as mandated under Section 112(8) of the CGST/PGST Act, 2017. Consequently, no further directions were required from the Court.
Key Issues
1. Whether the recovery proceedings initiated through the notice dated February 13, 2025, should be stayed, considering the non-constitution of the GST Tribunal and the petitioner's compliance with the pre-deposit requirements under Section 112(8) of the CGST/PGST Act, 2017, and the guidelines in Circular No. 224/18/2024 dated July 11, 2024? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they had made the requisite pre-deposit as stipulated by Section 112(8) of the CGST Act and followed the guidelines in Circular No. 224/18/2024. Therefore, recovery of the remaining amount should be stayed. Respondents' contention: The respondents, through their reply, admitted that the petitioner had deposited the requisite pre-deposit. They clarified that the impugned recovery notice was issued inadvertently as this fact was not known to the issuing officer at the time. They further stated that in light of Circular dated July 11, 2024, the recovery of the remaining amount stands stayed as mandated under Section 112(8) of the CGST/PGST Act, 2017.
Sections Cited
Section 112(8), Section 112(9)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
CWP-5785-2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 124 CWP-5785-2025 Date of Decision: 07.04.2025 M/s Guru Kirpa Steels
......Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Ms. Alisha Chawla, Advocate, and Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. ***** SUDEEPTI SHARMA,
J.
The present writ petition is filed with the following prayers:- (i) For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents not to proceed with the recovery proceedings initiated through the notice for recovery of demand dated 13.02.2025, which demands payment of tax, interest and penalty despite non-constitution of GST Tribunal and the payment of requisite pre-deposit by the petitioner in terms of Section 112(8) and in violation of Circular dated 11.07.2024 bearing No.224/18/2024. VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.04.11 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP-5785-2025 (O&M) -2- (ii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned recovery notice, as per CBIC Circular No.224/18/2024 dated 11.07.2024, which states that upon the payment of the pre-deposit, recovery of the remaining amount stands stayed under Section 112(9) of the CGST/PGST Act, 2017. iii) For issuance of any other appropriate writ or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
The brief facts of the case are that the impugned notice for recovery of demand dated 13.02.2025 is the consequential effect of the order dated 15.07.2019 passed by the Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-State Tax Officer, Mansa. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order dated 15.07.2019 before the Deputy Excise & Txation Commissioner (Appeals), Faridkot Division, Head Office, Bathinda, who dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner, vide its order dated 17.02.2020. Since, the Goods & Services Tax Tribunal (for short, ‘GST Tribunal’) is not constituted, therefore, the petitioner could not challenge the order dated 17.02.2020 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax (Appeals), Faridkot Division, Head Office, Bathinda, and the notice for recovery of demand dated 13.02.2025 was received by him, which is the consequence of basic order dated 15.07.2019. Admittedly order dated 17.02.2020 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax (Appeals), Faridkot Division, Head Office, Bathinda, is appealable VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.04.11 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP-5785-2025 (O&M) -3- and since, the GST Tribunal is not constituted, therefore, the petitioner has challenged the same before this Court. Hence, he filed the present writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has already made payment of requisite pre-deposit in terms of the Section 112(8) of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, and in terms of Circular dated 11.07.2024 bearing No.224/18/2024, which is issued by the Government of India with certain guidelines for recovery of outstanding dues till the GST Tribunal comes into operation, therefore, in view of the same, recovery of the remaining amount be stayed.
Upon notice, reply by way of affidavit dated 05.03.2025 of Karanbir Singh, Exicse & Taxation Officer-cum-Proper Officer, Ward No.2, Mansa, on behalf of the respondents, was filed. The relevant paragraphs No.4 and 5 of the same are reproduced as under:- “4. That in the absence of constitution of GST Tribunal and as clarified by the Government of India vide Circular No.224/18/2024 dated 11.07.2024, which states that in terms of Section 112(8) of the Act ibid petitioner was required to deposit further 20% of the remaining tax in dispute. It is also mentioned here that the above circular has been adopted by the State Government by circulating to all concerned directing the field formations and Registered Dealers to comply with the guidelines and clarification as laid down in the said circular.
That it is humbly and respectfully submitted that it is admitted fact that the payment of requisite pre-deposit in terms VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.04.11 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP-5785-2025 (O&M) -4- of Section 112(8) of PGST Act has been deposited by the petitioner but at the time of issuance of the impugned notice this fact was not in the knowledge of the deponent hence, inadvertently the impugned notice was served to the petitioner. However, as of now, in view of Circular dated 11.07.2024 bearing No.224/18/2024 issued by the CBIC, the recovery of the remaining amount stands stayed by the respondent department as mandated under Section 112(8) of the CGST/PGST Act, 2017.”
In view of the stand taken by the respondents, the present writ petition is disposed of as having been rendered infractuous. (ARUN PALLI) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE 07.04.2025 Virrendra Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes / No Whether reportable: Yes / No VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.04.11 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.