M/S. Gvpr Engineering Limited - Siemens Limited (Jv) Sri G Veera Shekar Reddy vs. Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Central Tax

Held

The Court noted that the learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue had placed reliance on three documents, including an Order in Original and two requests made to the third and fourth respondents. Based on these documents, the Revenue submitted that the writ petition had become infructuous. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute this submission but prayed for liberty to file fresh proceedings if the occasion arose. The Revenue had no objection to this liberty being granted. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition as having become infructuous, while granting the liberty sought by the petitioner. No specific findings were made on the merits of the petitioner's challenge to the notices, as the matter was disposed of on the ground of being infructuous.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s GVPR Engineering Limited - Siemens Limited (JV), filed a writ petition challenging two notices in Form GST DRC-13, dated 04.07.2023 and 21.07.2023, issued by the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax (1st Respondent) to the Union Bank of India (3rd Respondent) and Transmission Corporation of Telangana Limited (4th Respondent) respectively. These notices were related to a disputed demand under the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner sought to declare these notices as arbitrary, illegal, and violative of principles of natural justice and constitutional provisions. The petitioner also sought a stay on the recovery of the disputed demand. The respondents included various tax authorities and the entities to whom the notices were issued.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned notices in Form GST DRC-13, issued by the 1st Respondent to the 3rd and 4th Respondents, are arbitrary, illegal, in violation of principles of natural justice, without authority of law, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265 of the Constitution of India, and contrary to the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017 and Rules thereunder? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the impugned notices were illegal and arbitrary, violating fundamental rights and statutory provisions. Revenue's arguments: The Revenue, through the learned Standing Counsel, placed reliance on three documents: an Order in Original dated 27.12.2023, a Request dated 04.10.2023 to M/s. Transmission Corporation of Telangana Limited, and a Request dated 04.10.2023 to the Branch Manager, Union Bank of India. Based on these documents, the Revenue submitted that the petition had become infructuous.