Syed Hussain Vali vs. The Union Of INDIA

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

The petitioner herein is a contractor involved in business of providing manpower/labourer to factories in and around Cement Nagar Kurnool and have been assessed on the rolls of respondent

While things stood thus, the petitioner entered into an agreement dated 09.04.2008 with respondent No.5, to supply manpower at its Cement Factory for maintenance of the machinery therein. The manpower was supplied to respondent No.5 on commission basis. It is stated that the petitioner herein supplied manpower to respondent No.5 for the period November 2017 to October 2018 and billed respondent No.5 to a tune of Rs.25,61,347/-. Having availed the services of the petitioner, respondent No.5 failed to make any payment. Since the business of the petitioner was solely dependent on respondent No.5, the petitioner was forced to close his business. It is averred that, respondent No.5 undertook payment of taxes including GST on behalf of the petitioner. However, respondent No.5 committed default in payment of loans to various nationalised banks and finance institutions and dues to other operational creditors and in view of the same, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process was initiated against respondent No.5. 5. At that point of time, respondent No.4 passed the assessment order, fixing liability to the extent indicated above. Respondent No.4 issued notice on 05.11.2020 by registered post demanding the petitioner to pay tax along with interest, penalty and late fee of Rs.4,04,582/- for the tax period November, 2017 to March, 2018 and Rs.4,73,598/- for the tax period April, 2018 to October, 2018. 6. On coming to know about the same, the petitioner filed a claim in Form B of the IBC, 2016 claiming an amount of Rs.8,78,180/- for the amount of tax due along with interest and penalty. Thereafter, d t N 5 d t CIR d l ti l

Reiterating the averments made in the affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the order under challenge is liable to be set aside due to non service of Notice under Section 46 of the Act.

The same is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents. It is contended that the Juri ictional Range Officer has issued form GSTR-3A notice on 15.06.2018 and 01.02.2019, for both the periods, for non filing of returns under Section 46 of CGST Act, 2017 requesting them to file returns. In spite of issuing GSTR-3A notices, the petitioner failed to file prescribed statutory returns and following the due process of law, the impugned order came to be passed. In so far as other aspects are concerned, the same involves disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in the present writ petition.

A perusal of the material would show that notice under Section 46 of the Act was in fact issued to the petitioner. Therefore, argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not accepted.

Coming to the other ground raised i.e. valuation of the material supplied to respondent No.5, as urged by the learned counsel for the d t i di t d ti f f t hi h t b

Therefore, we feel that it is not a fit case to grant the relief sought by the petitoner in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, it is open to the petitioner to challenge the order impugned by way of filing an appeal, in which event, the authority concerned shall deal with the same in accordance with law. It is to be noted any observations made are for deciding the case on hand and the same shall not influence the appellate authority while deciding the matter.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.