M/S A-One Steel And Alloys Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA
Held
The Court quashed the impugned communication dated February 17, 2020 (Annexure-A). The Court's decision was based on the admitted circumstances that a communication dated September 18, 2020, had been issued, directing show cause notices on gross tax payable to be kept in 'Call Book' pending the retrospective amendment of Section 50 of the CGST Act, 2017. It was also undisputed that a show cause notice, as required for Sections 73 and 74 of the Act, had not yet been issued. The Court granted liberty to the respondents to issue an appropriate show cause notice and follow up in line with the communication dated September 18, 2020. The primary issue regarding the retrospective nature of the proviso to Section 50(1) was not directly decided but was implicitly addressed by the Court's direction to await legislative action and issue a fresh show cause notice.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s A-One Steel and Alloys Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging a communication dated February 17, 2020, which demanded interest liability for the period from July 2017 to March 2019. During the pendency of the petition, a subsequent communication dated September 18, 2020, was issued. This communication directed that show cause notices issued on gross tax payable be kept in 'Call Book' pending the retrospective amendment of Section 50(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. It was also undisputed that a show cause notice, as required under Sections 73 and 74 of the Act, had not yet been issued to the petitioner.
Key Issues
1. Whether the first proviso to Section 50(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, should be declared retrospective from July 1, 2017? The petitioner argued that the insertion of the first proviso to Section 50(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, should be treated as retrospective from the date of the origin of Section 50, i.e., July 1, 2017. The respondents did not record any specific arguments in the judgment regarding this issue. However, the subsequent communication dated September 18, 2020, which directed show cause notices to be kept in 'Call Book' pending retrospective amendment of Section 50, implicitly acknowledges the potential for a retrospective effect or at least a need to await legislative action.
Sections Cited
Section 50, Section 73, Section 74
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF DECEMBER 2020
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 5190/2020 (T/RES)
BETWEEN:
M/S A-ONE STEEL AND ALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED NO 852 BACK PORTION, 1ST FLOOR /A ‘D’ BLOCK SAHAKARNAGAR BENGALURU – 560 092 KARNATAKA INDIA REP BY ITS DIRECTOR SUNIL KUMAR JALLAN AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O KRISHNAN KUMAR JALLAN ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. P B HARISH ., ADVOCATE)
AND: 1 . UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE REVENUE SECERETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE NO 137, NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI - 110001
THE DY COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAXES LG-4 CIRCLE – IV O/O BANGALORE AUDIT COMMISSIONERATE II JSS TOWERS 100FT RING ROAD BANASHANKARI III STAGE BENGALURU - 560085 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.JEEVAN J. NEERALAGI., ADVOCATE)
2 THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF DECLARATION OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION DECLARING THE INSERTION OF THE FIR
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 Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.