J D Jain And Company vs. State Of Punjab And Another
Held
The Court directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the total amount as per Form MOV-10 and Form MOV-11. This deposit would be subject to the final decision of the case. The petitioner was also permitted to submit personal and surety bonds for the remaining amount. Upon depositing the specified amount, the goods and vehicle were to be released within seven days. The Court also noted that for other arguments raised by the petitioner, they were free to pursue appropriate remedies before the Appellate Authority. The Writ Petition was disposed of in these terms.
Facts
The petitioner, J.D. Jain and Company, through its Proprietor Pradeep Jain, filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The petitioner's case was stated to be similar to that of M/s Manya Alloy and Steels. The petitioner argued that the goods were supplied by M/s Manya Alloys and Steels, and if that firm used forged bills or rent deeds, the liability should not fall on the petitioner. The petitioner had previously filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax (Appeals), Ludhiana, which was dismissed on May 15, 2024. The petitioner also referred to a Supreme Court order in a similar case.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is liable for the goods supplied by M/s Manya Alloys and Steels, given the allegation of forged bills or rent deeds used by the supplier? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of vicarious liability and due diligence under GST law). Contentions: Petitioner: Argued that if M/s Manya Alloys and Steels used forged documents, the liability should not be attributed to the petitioner, as the goods were obtained from that firm. The petitioner also relied on a Supreme Court order in a similar matter and a dismissed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax (Appeals). Revenue/State: No specific arguments recorded for the revenue/State in the provided text.
Sections Cited
No specific sections of the CGST/SGST Act or Rules were explicitly discussed or named in the provided judgment text.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
107 IN TH J.D. JAIN AN STATE OF PU
CORAM: H
H Present: M M
* SANJEEV PR
N
M on behalf of th
L petitioner is s Proprietor R 16839-2024, w a i s A C L 1 p s w o t HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR
CWP-3 Date of ND COMPANY THROUGH ITS P
V UNJAB AND ANOTHER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ
Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate for Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Addl. A.G. ***** RAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Senior St he respondents/Income Tax Dep Learned counsel for the petition similar to that of M/s Manya “Learned counsel for the attention to the order passed by th n a similar case bearing No. SLP submits that petitioner had preferr Appeal No. 1893 of 2023-24, Commissioner State Tax (Appe Ludhiana (Camp office at Jalan 15.05.2024 has dismissed the same petitioner submits that so far as the same have been supplied by M/s which is the firm of State of U.P obtained the goods on the basis of the liability would not be of the peti Notice of motion 10.12.2024 AB AND HARYANA AT RH 31481-2024 (O&M) f Decision: 22.11.2024 PROPRIETOR PRADEEP JAIN
..….
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.