M/S Apar Fragrances vs. Union Of INDIA
Held
The Court noted that the petitioner, at the very outset, stated that they were not pressing the prayer challenging the vires of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act. Consequently, the remaining prayers in the petition, which pertained to the impugned order and its legality, could be dealt with by the competent authority under the appellate jurisdiction provided by Section 107 of the CGST Act. Therefore, the Court was not inclined to interfere with the writ petition on that ground alone. The Court disposed of the writ petition with liberty granted to the petitioner to file an appeal within 30 days from the date of the order. It was further directed that the time taken by the petitioner in pursuing the writ petition would be excluded while calculating the period of limitation for filing the appeal, and the appeal would be decided on its merits.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Apar Fragrances, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court challenging an order dated 16.08.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Circle-C, Ward-I, Zone-I, Jaipur. The petitioner also sought to declare Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act/RGST Act, 2017 as arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of constitutional provisions. The petitioner's primary prayer was to quash the impugned order. However, at the outset of the proceedings, the petitioner's counsel, under instructions, stated that they would not press the prayer challenging the vires of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act.
Key Issues
1. Whether the restriction under Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act/RGST Act, 2017 is arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g), and 300A of the Constitution of India. (Petitioner's contention: Yes, it is arbitrary and violates constitutional rights. Revenue's contention: Not recorded as the petitioner withdrew this prayer.) 2. Whether the impugned order dated 16.08.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner is contrary to the provisions of GST Law prevailing during the Financial Year 2017-18. (Petitioner's contention: Yes, the order is contrary to the law. Revenue's contention: Not recorded as the Court did not delve into the merits of the order.)
Sections Cited
Section 16(2)(c), Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
[2026:RJ-JP:26312-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19636/2023 URN: CW / 38279U / 2023 M/s Apar Fragrances, 2Nd Floor O-3O, Amber Tower, S.c. Road, Sindhi Camp, Jaipur , Rajasthan Through Its Partner Mrs. Kanchan Gupta W/o Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Aged 53 Years R/o Plot No.
Mahatma Gandhi Nagar, Dcm Ajmer Road , Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1 Union Of India, Represented Through Union Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance , North Block, New Delhi-110001. 2 Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs, Through Its Chairman Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, New Delhi-110001. 3 State Of Rajasthan, Though Its Finance Secretary, Finance Department , 1St Floor, Main Building, Government Secretariat, Janpath, Jaipur - 302005. 4 Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department (Rajasthan Goods And Service Tax Department), Kar Bhawan, Ambedkar Circle, Bhawanisingh Road , Jaipur. 5 Assistant Commissioner, Circle-C, Ward-I, Zone-I, Jaipur, Commercial Taxes Department Rajasthan, Jaipur, Regional Taxes Building, Jhalana Institutional Area, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sujit Ghosh, throu
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 Rajasthan High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.