M/S Shiv Shakti Industries vs. Superintendent Ae CGST Division Karnal
Original PDF →Facts
M/s Shiv Shakti Industries, through its partner Sashank Garg, filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice issued under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. This followed an earlier writ petition (WP-18005-2024) where the court had rejected contentions regarding a notice under Section 122 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner had also filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn. The current petition sought to have the show cause notice issued electronically as per Rule 142(1)(a) of the CGST/HGST Rules, 2017, and to be allowed to file the reply electronically. The revenue argued that it was not prevented from issuing the notice by email, and the petitioner was not barred from filing a reply via email.
Held
The Court dismissed the writ petition, finding it to be a gross abuse of the process of law. The Court observed that the petitioner had not availed the opportunity to file replies to the show cause notices as permitted by the Supreme Court and instead preferred to file the present writ petition. The Court noted that the provisions of law cannot be twisted for the convenience of persons found to be prima facie utilizing fraudulent ITCs. The Court affirmed that if the present argument was to be taken, it could have been examined by the Supreme Court, and the High Court had already granted liberty to the petitioner to file replies. The petition was dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/- to be deposited with the CGST Authorities.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to have the show cause notice issued electronically under Rule 142(1)(a) of the CGST/HGST Rules, 2017, and to file their reply electronically. - Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that the show cause notice should be issued electronically as per the provisions of Rule 142(1)(a) of the CGST/HGST Rules, 2017, and they should be permitted to file their reply electronically. - Revenue's argument: The revenue argued that they are not prevented from issuing the show cause notice by email, and the mere fact that it was not issued electronically does not invalidate it. They also stated that the petitioner is not prevented from filing a reply through email. The revenue further submitted that allowing the petitioner's prayer would necessitate issuing a fresh notice electronically, resetting the time limit.
Sections Cited
Section 74(1), Section 122, Rule 142(1)(a)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
following order:- “Learned senior coun withdraw this Special Leave Pe His submission is place The Special Leave P withdrawn. Since the High Court h petitioner to file replies to the needless to observe that the p take all available contentions i the Show Cause Notices.”
The present writ petition although not to seek quashing of th praying for the show cause electronically keeping in view th under Rule 142(1)(a) of the CGST/ further submits that he be allo electronically alone.
On the other hand, le counsel for the revenue, appeari submits that the revenue is not pre show cause notice under Section 74 mail, and merely, because electroni has not been issued, the same cann n any terms and the petitioner is n reply to the show cause notice throu
Learned Senior Standing hat the petitioner is only trying to d one pretext or the other seeks to get he show cause notice issued und CGST Act, 2017. If the prayer of th hen the revenue will have to issu electronically mode and the time li afresh. Court vide order dated he same, passed the nsel sought permission to etition. ed on record. Petition is dismissed as has reserved liberty to the Show Cause Notices, it is petitioner is at liberty to in the replies to be filed to n has been filed again, e show cause notice, but notice to be issued he provisions contained T/HGST Rules, 2017 and owed to file the reply earned Senior Standing ing on advance notice, evented from issuing the 4 of the CGST Act, by e- ically show cause notice not be treated as invalid not prevented from filing ugh e-mail. Counsel further submits delay the proceedings in t proceedings delayed of der Section 74(1) of the he petitioner is allowed, ue fresh notice through imitation would also set
MOHIT GOYAL 2024.08.06 11:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP-18331-202 p tw fo to A p a p w R C
After h petition behalf our view
Writ Pe
All pen
August 05, 2024 Mohit goyal
Whether
Whether 24 (O&M)
We do not propose to g petitioner. The provisions of law c wisted for the convenience of pe found to be prima facie utilizing the 7. We also noticed that if th o be taken, the same could have Apex Court and even the Supreme petitioner to file his reply, which h and preferred, the present writ petit
In view of above, we find petition is a gross abuse to the proc we dismiss the writ petition b Rs.50,000/- upon the petitioner, to CGST Authorities.”
having made aforesaid observati ner Sashank Garg, the present of the firm raising the same is w already taken as above. etition is dismissed accordingly. nding applications also stand disp
(SANJ 4 speaking/reasoned?
Y reportable?
Y give such means to the cannot be allowed to be ersons, who have been e fraudulent ITCs. he present argument was e been examined by the e Court has directed the he has not chosen to do, tion. the filing of present writ cess of law. Accordingly, by imposing costs of o be deposited with the ions and imposing costs on the writ petition has been filed on sue afresh. We however affirm posed of. JEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE
(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No
e n m MOHIT GOYAL 2024.08.06 11:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.