Principal Commissioner CGST Gurugram vs. M/S Hitachi Metal INDIA Private Limited
Original PDF →Facts
The appeal was filed by the Commissioner CGST, Gurugram (appellant) against M/s Hitachi Metal India Private Limited (respondent). The case concerns the taxability of certain goods or services. The Division Bench of the High Court, in previous judgments like Commissioner of CGST Panchkula vs. Nestle India Limited and Commissioner of CGST vs. DLF Golf Resorts Ltd., has consistently held that appeals relating to taxability are not maintainable before the High Court. The appellant's counsel was unable to dispute this legal proposition. The Court also noted similar views taken by the Delhi High Court and other High Courts. The revenue could not point to any contrary judgment.
Held
The Court held that an appeal concerning the determination of taxability is not maintainable before the High Court. This decision is based on the consistent view of the Division Bench of this Court in cases such as Commissioner of CGST Panchkula vs. Nestle India Limited and Commissioner of CGST vs. DLF Golf Resorts Ltd., which have established that appeals on taxability issues lie with the Supreme Court and not the High Court. The Court also noted that similar views have been taken by other High Courts. Since the appellant could not present any judgment to the contrary and did not dispute the established legal position, the appeal was dismissed. However, liberty was granted to the revenue to take appropriate steps in accordance with law, including filing an appeal before the Apex Court at the earliest, if so advised. The Court also noted that other similar appeals would necessarily also have to be dismissed as the Tribunal would follow this view.
Key Issues
1. Whether an appeal concerning the determination of taxability is maintainable before the High Court under the relevant provisions of the GST Act, considering previous pronouncements by the Division Bench of this Court and other High Courts? Contentions of the Petitioner (Appellant): The appellant did not dispute the proposition of law laid down in previous judgments of the Division Bench of this Court, which held that appeals relating to taxability are not maintainable before the High Court. Contentions of the Respondent: The respondent relied on the consistent view of the High Court that such appeals are not maintainable. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent beyond supporting the established legal position.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
202 (P&H) and another judgment itled The Principal Commissione and Co., decided on 12.03.2020 consistently held that appeal to maintainable in a matter relating to AB AND HARYANA AT RH STA-14-2021 (O&M) Date of Decision: 08.05.2024 RUGRAM . . . . Appellant IMITED . . . . Respondent NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA UDEEPTI SHARMA for ding Counsel ) e case of Commissioner of CGST d in STA-26-2019 decided on unsel for the respondent ion of the imposition of only be considered by the d to the judgment passed urt in Commissioner of s Ltd, 2017 (7) G.S.T.L. passed in STA-23-2019 er vs. M/s. Raj Kishan 0 wherein it has been o High Court is not o taxability.
-1-
) 4 t t T, n MOHIT GOYAL 2024.05.10 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
STA-14-2021 (O& to s w a
The Di Central 2021 an s B S S v (K ( S S R c la m g s e d d v
&M) Learned counsel for the app o dispute the proposition of law as said judgments. Keeping in view this fact, t with liberty to the revenue to tak accordance with law, if so advised. ivision Bench of this Court in l Excise, Delhi vs. M/s Evalues nd connected matters decided on “7. It has also been brou view.” pellant has not been able s laid down by the above this appeal is dismissed ke appropriate steps in ” n the case of Commissioner of serve.com Pvt. Ltd. in STA-13- n 15.12.2023, has held as under: ught to our notice that en by another Division hi in Commissioner of ndia Pvt. Ltd., 2015 (39) Service Tax, Bangalore td, 2011 (23) STR 220 search India Ltd., 2013 r of Central Excise and s. TNT Ltd., 2011 (23) tion, counsels for the ut any judgment to the ove and the question of at the appeal is not me. However, liberty is n accordance with law, if e the Apex Court at the t STA-13-2021 stands cessarily also have to be ly followed its earlier
-2-
f - MOHIT GOYAL 2024.05.10 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
STA-14-2021 (O&
Taking the abo Central the app
Accord
All pen
May 08, 2024 Mohit goyal
Whethe
Whethe &M) into consideration the law as s ove said cases, we find that in l Excise Act, 1944, appeal woul peal would only lie to the Suprem dingly, appeal stands dismissed w nding applications also stand disp
(SANJ ( 4 er speaking/reasoned?
Y er reportable?
Y ettled by the Division Bench in terms of Section 35(G) of the ld not lie to the High Court and me Court. with aforesaid liberty. posed of accordingly. JEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE
(SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No -3-
n e d MOHIT GOYAL 2024.05.10 09:44 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.