M/S. Creative Enterprises vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Held

The Court did not decide the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shaik Jeelani Basha, sought to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file afresh if the occasion arises. The Special Government Pleader for State Tax, representing the 1st Respondent, had no objection to the withdrawal. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn, granting the liberty prayed for by the petitioner. No costs were imposed. Any pending interlocutory applications were also closed.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Creative Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging the action of the Assistant Commissioner (ST) (1st Respondent). The petitioner sought to declare the 1st Respondent's action of issuing a show cause notice for cancellation of registration, without granting the requested two-week extension, as arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner also challenged the blocking of Input Tax Credit (ITC) to the tune of Rs. 13.33 crores, communicated via email on May 17, 2024, following the 1st Respondent's notice dated May 9, 2024. The petitioner sought directions to unblock the ITC and consider their claim. The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the 1st Respondent in issuing a show cause notice for cancellation of registration and blocking ITC without granting a two-week extension sought by the petitioner is arbitrary, contrary to the CGST/SGST Act, 2017, and in violation of principles of natural justice and constitutional rights (Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21)? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the 1st Respondent acted arbitrarily and high-handedly by not granting the requested two-week time to respond to the show cause notice. They contended that this action, along with the blocking of ITC, was contrary to the provisions of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017, biased, without jurisdiction, and violated the principles of natural justice and the rule of law. The petitioner also asserted a violation of their constitutional rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondents.