M/S Dharampal Premchand LTD. 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. Recognizing that a statutory remedy of appeal is available under Section 107 of the DGST Act, SGST Act, and CGST Act, the Court decided not to interfere with the impugned orders on their merits. However, the Court acknowledged that the validity of notifications issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017, and Section 168 itself, were under scrutiny before the Supreme Court. Consequently, the 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 of the CGST Act, 2017, would be governed by the Supreme Court's decision. The Court's view was supported by a Delhi High Court decision.

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, 2017, and adjudication had taken place. The amount in dispute is not specified in the judgment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned orders are valid, considering the pending adjudication and the availability of statutory remedies? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 and the principles of alternative remedy). 2. What is the impact of the ongoing Supreme Court proceedings concerning the validity of notifications issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017, and Section 168 itself on the present petitions? (Question of law, concerning Section 168 and Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners primarily sought relief through writ petitions, implying a challenge to the procedural fairness or the substantive validity of the orders. They had already responded to show cause notices, indicating engagement with the adjudication process. Revenue's arguments: The respondents, including the Union of India and the State of Rajasthan, likely contended that the statutory remedy of appeal was available and should be pursued, and that the impugned orders were valid. The judgment does not explicitly detail the revenue's arguments beyond the implication of available statutory remedies.