M/S Khetan Exports vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court noted that the petitioners had already filed replies to show cause notices issued under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017, and adjudication had been completed. While the Court acknowledged the statutory remedy of appeal available under Section 107 of the DGST Act, SGST Act, and CGST Act, it chose not to interfere with the impugned orders on merits. However, the Court highlighted that the question of the validity of notifications issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017, and Section 168 itself is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.4240/2025. Therefore, the High Court left it open to the petitioners to make submissions before the Apex Court or await its final adjudication. The validity of the impugned orders concerning Section 168A would be governed by the Supreme Court's decision. The Court also referred to a similar view taken by the Delhi High Court. The petitioners were permitted to challenge the orders on merit in appeal, and if filed within one month, the appeals would be examined purely on merits without considering limitation.

Facts

Multiple petitioners, including Eagle Trans Shipping And Logistics India Private Limited, M/s Khetan Exports, M/s Dharampal Premchand Ltd., M/s Sojitz Corporation, M/s New India Contractors And Developers Pvt. Ltd., Indus Towers Limited, M/s Rakesh Sons, and M/s. Hazari Bagh Builders Pvt.ltd., filed writ petitions before the Rajasthan High Court. The petitions challenged various orders and actions related to GST. The petitioners had already filed replies to show cause notices issued under Section 73 of the CGST Act, and adjudication had taken place. The core of the dispute appears to revolve around the validity of notifications issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017, and Section 168 itself.

Key Issues

1. Whether the notifications issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017, and the provisions of Section 168 itself are valid? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioners argued that the validity of notifications issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017, and the provisions of Section 168 itself are subject to scrutiny. They sought to challenge these aspects. Revenue's Argument: The judgment does not explicitly record any arguments made by the revenue or state respondents on the specific question of the validity of Section 168A and Section 168. However, by implication, their actions in issuing notices and proceeding with adjudication suggest they relied on these provisions.