M/S Rk Marble Industries vs. State Of Punjab And Others
Held
The Court held that an appeal lies against the order passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Court found that the petitioner had not made out a case for interference in the writ jurisdiction, as an alternative appellate remedy was available. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed. However, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner – Company to file an appeal against the order dated 18.10.2024 within a period of 15 days. The Court further directed that if such an appeal is filed within the stipulated period, it shall be decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months. The ratio decidendi is that statutory remedies must generally be exhausted before approaching the writ court, unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s R.K. Marble Industries – Company, received a show cause notice dated 29.06.2024 under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017. This notice was issued following an audit conducted under Section 65 for the year 2023-24, which identified outstanding dues. The petitioner did not file a reply to the show cause notice or make any payment. Consequently, an order was passed on 18.10.2024, and a demand summary was issued on Form GST DRC-07 on the same day. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging these actions, arguing that the High Court's writ jurisdiction was not warranted.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition when an alternative remedy of appeal is available under the CGST Act, 2017, specifically against an order passed under Section 74 of the Act? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that no case for interference was made out in the writ jurisdiction, implying that the writ petition was the appropriate forum or that the circumstances justified bypassing the appellate remedy. Revenue/State's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the revenue or state. However, the court's decision implicitly acknowledges the existence of an appeal mechanism and the general principle of exhausting alternative remedies.
Sections Cited
Section 74, Section 65
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
135 IN
M/S R.K. M
STATE OF P
CORAM:
Present:
SANJEEV P 1. reasons hav 74 of the CG 2. – Company informed th and the dem outstanding 3. said show c passed on 1 on Form GS 4. for interfere THE HIGH COURT OF PUN AT CHANDIG
MARBLE INDUSTRIES Ve PUNJAB AND OTHERS HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN Mr. Rishab Singla, Advocate fo **** PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitio e been supplied to it and an orde GST Act, 2017. We find that the show cause no under Section 74 of the CGST A at the audit was conducted unde mand has been created in terms dues. The petitioner – Company does cause notice nor made any paym 18.10.2024 and a demand summ ST DRC – 07 on that day. Appeal lies against the said ord ence is made out in the writ jurisd NJAB AND HARYANA ARH
CWP-34634-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision : 19.12.2024
. . . Petitioner(s) ersus
. . . Respondent(s) NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH or the petitioner(s). ) oner – Company submits that n er has been passed under Sectio otice was issued to the petitione Act, 2017 on 29.06.2024 and it i r Section 65 for the year 2023-2 of the said audit
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.