M/S Rakesh Sons 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 question of the validity of notifications issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017, and the provisions of Section 168 itself, is a subject matter of scrutiny before the Supreme Court in a pending Special Leave to Appeal. Therefore, the Court left it open to the petitioners to make submissions before the Apex Court or to 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 buttressed by a decision of the Delhi High Court. The petitioners were advised to challenge the orders on merit in appeal, with any appeal preferred within one month to 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., have filed writ petitions before the Rajasthan High Court. The petitions challenge various orders and actions related to GST. The petitioners have already filed replies to show cause notices issued under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017, and adjudication has been completed. The core of the dispute involves the validity of notifications issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017, and the provisions of Section 168 itself, which are currently under scrutiny before the Supreme Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the notifications issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017, and the provisions of Section 168 itself are valid, considering they are subject to scrutiny before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.4240/2025? Petitioner's contention: The petitioners are challenging the validity of these provisions and notifications. They are seeking relief from the High Court, potentially by making submissions before the Apex Court or waiting for its final adjudication. They also wish to challenge the impugned orders on merits. Revenue/State's contention: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the revenue or state on this specific issue. However, by issuing show cause notices and proceeding with adjudication, they are implicitly upholding the validity of the relevant provisions and notifications.