M/S Sharma Construction vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Sharma Construction, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court challenging an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Circle-F, Jaipur-III. The petitioner had already filed a reply to the show cause notice issued under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017, and adjudication had been done. The revenue authorities are the Union of India and the State Goods and Services Department of Rajasthan, along with various subordinate authorities. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history involves the issuance of a show cause notice, adjudication, and the petitioner's challenge via a writ petition after the adjudication.

Held

The Court noted that the issue was covered by a previous decision of a Coordinate Bench in Eagle Trans Shipping And Logistics India Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors. The Court acknowledged that statutory remedy of appeal is available under Section 107 of the DGST Act, SGST Act, and CGST Act, and therefore, it would not interfere with the impugned orders on merits. However, the Court also noted that the validity of notifications issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017, and Section 168 itself, were under scrutiny before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Consequently, the Court left it open to the petitioners to either make submissions before the Apex Court or wait for its final adjudication. The validity of the impugned order concerning Section 168A would be governed by the Supreme Court's decision. The Court, following the precedent, quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 21.02.2025 and remanded the matter back to the appellate authority for decision on merits, without delving into the question of limitation if an appeal was preferred within one month.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order, which was passed after adjudication following a reply to a show cause notice under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017, is valid in light of the availability of a statutory appeal remedy under Section 107 of the DGST Act and CGST Act. 2. Whether the validity of notifications issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017, and the provisions of Section 168 itself, which are subject to scrutiny before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, affect the present case. Petitioner's Arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the petitioner. However, the fact that a writ petition was filed suggests a challenge to the order on merits or procedural grounds. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the revenue. However, the revenue's stance is implied by the existence of the impugned order and the availability of statutory remedies.