The Assistant Commissioner State Tax, Mobile Wing, Chandigarh 2 vs. M/S A.B.V.B. Steel Company And Another
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, the Assistant Commissioner State Tax, challenged a High Court order that had directed a refund. The respondent, M/s A.B.V.B Steel Company, had previously filed a writ petition seeking a refund based on an order dated 16.06.2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner State Tax (Appeals), Patiala Division. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the issue was similar to a previously decided case, Satguru Steels Vs. State of Punjab and another, which was decided based on a Supreme Court judgment in State of Punjab Vs. M/s Shiv Enterprises and others. The Supreme Court in Shiv Enterprises had set aside a High Court order quashing a notice under Section 130 of the CGST Act and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. The respondent had also filed a writ petition seeking refund in terms of the Deputy Commissioner's order.
Held
The Court held that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner State Tax (Appeals), Patiala Division, which relied on the High Court's observations in M/s Shiv Enterprises Vs State of Punjab and others, should be re-examined. This is because the Supreme Court had set aside the Shiv Enterprises judgment and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. Following the Supreme Court's directive in State of Punjab Vs. M/s Shiv Enterprises and others, the Court directed the Deputy Commissioner State Tax (Appeals), Patiala Division, to independently examine the contentions raised by the writ petitioner (M/s A.B.V.B Steel Company). The writ petitioner was given the liberty to raise all its contentions with regard to the challenge of invocation under Section 130 of the CGST Act. The Deputy Commissioner was expected to pass a detailed speaking order after examining all aspects and hearing the stakeholders within two months. Parties were directed to appear before the Deputy Commissioner on 11.06.2024. The issue of refund was implicitly deferred pending the fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner State Tax (Appeals) dated 16.06.2022, which relied on the High Court's decision in M/s Shiv Enterprises Vs State of Punjab and others, should be upheld, given that the Supreme Court has set aside the Shiv Enterprises judgment and remanded the matter. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that since the Supreme Court has set aside the judgment in M/s Shiv Enterprises and remanded the matter, a similar view should be taken in this case. They relied on the Supreme Court's decision in State of Punjab Vs. M/s Shiv Enterprises and others, which directed the appropriate authority to independently examine the contentions raised by the writ petitioner after the original writ petitioner files a reply to the show cause notice. Respondent's contention: The respondent sought a refund as directed by the Deputy Commissioner State Tax (Appeals) order dated 16.06.2022, subject to further proceedings.
Sections Cited
Section 130
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
CWP-11681-2024 --1-- 2024:PHHC:076278-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 117 CWP-11681-2024 Date of Decision: May 23, 2024 The Assistant Commissioner State Tax Mobile Wing, Chd-II, Patiala ......Petitioner(s) Vs. M/s A.B.V.B Steel Company Mandi Gobindgarh and another ......Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Saurabh Goel, Sr. Panel Counsel for the petitioner. ---- another’
We followed the judgment passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case titled as State of Punjab Vs. M/s Shiv Enterprises and others wherein it was held as under :- "
In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and without expressing anything on merits in favour of either parties, more particularly, against respondent therein (original writ petitioner), on the aforesaid ground alone, we set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court to the extent of quashing and setting aside the notice dated 14.09.2021, issued under Section 130 of the CGST Act and remand the matter to the appropriate authority, who issued the notice. It will be for the respondent-herein original writ petitioner to file a reply to Sonia Arora 2024.05.30 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP-11681-2024 --2-- 2024:PHHC:076278-DB the said show cause notice within a period of four weeks from today and thereafter the appropriate authority to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law and on its own merits.
All the contentions/defences which may be available to the respondent-original writ petitioner are kept open to be considered by the appropriate authority in accordance with law and on its own merits.
The present appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs."
The respondent, on the other hand, had also preferred a writ petition bearing No.CWP-17400 of 2023 before this Court, wherein he prayed for refund of the amount in terms of the impugned order dated 16.06.2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner State Tax (Appeals), Patiala Division.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount as directed ought to be refunded to him subject to what is to be done in the appeal, if any, which may be preferred by the revenue against the order dated 16.06.2022. However, as noticed above, we find that GST Tribunal is yet to be formed and therefore, the revenue is before us in CWP No 4202 of 2024 (supra).
Keeping in view the above observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court and finding that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner State Tax (Appeals), Patiala Division relies upon the observations under law laid down by this court in M/s Shiv Enterprises Vs State of Punjab and others", which has been set aside by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the matter was remanded back, we too take similar view and direct the Deputy Commissioner State Tax (Appeals), Patiala Division to independently examine the contentions raised by the writ petitioner-Satguru Steels, before it. It would be open for the writ petitioners (hereinabove) to raise all its contentions with regard to the challenge of invocation under Section 130 in their case. It is expected from the Deputy Commissioner State Tax (Appeals), Patiala Division to pass a detailed speaking order after Sonia Arora 2024.05.30 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP-11681-2024 --3-- 2024:PHHC:076278-DB examining all the aspects and hearing the concerned stake holders within a period of two months, from today.
Parties shall themselves appear before the Deputy Commissioner State Tax (Appeals), Patiala Division on 11.06.2024. 7. The Writ Petition stands disposed of.
All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE
(SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE May 23, 2024 sonia arora Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes / No Whether reportable: Yes / No Sonia Arora 2024.05.30 14:27 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.