Satguru Steels vs. State Of Punjab And Another
Original PDF →Facts
Two writ petitions were filed before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. CWP-17400-2023 was filed by Satguru Steels seeking refund of Rs. 5,21,694/- as per an order dated 16.06.2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner State Tax (Appeals), Patiala Division. This order had set aside a penalty order dated 16.06.2021 passed by the Assistant Commissioner State Tax, Mobile Wing, Chandigarh-2, and directed the refund. CWP-4202-2024 was filed by the Assistant Commissioner State Tax challenging the aforesaid order of the Deputy Commissioner State Tax (Appeals). The revenue contended that the High Court judgment relied upon by the Deputy Commissioner State Tax (Appeals) in M/s Shiv Enterprises Vs. State of Punjab and others had been set aside by the Supreme Court.
Held
The High Court, taking note of the Supreme Court's decision in The State of Punjab Vs. M/s Shiv Enterprises and others, where the matter was remanded back to the appropriate authority for fresh consideration, decided to adopt a similar approach. The Court found that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner State Tax (Appeals) relied on a High Court judgment that was subsequently set aside by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the High Court directed the Deputy Commissioner State Tax (Appeals), Patiala Division, to independently examine the contentions raised by the petitioner, Satguru Steels. The petitioner was granted the liberty to raise all its contentions regarding the invocation of Section 130 of the CGST Act. The Deputy Commissioner State Tax (Appeals) was instructed to pass a detailed speaking order after examining all aspects and hearing the stakeholders within two months. Parties were directed to appear before the authority on 15.03.2024. The issue of GST Tribunal formation was also noted as a factor.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order dated 16.06.2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner State Tax (Appeals), Patiala Division, which relied on a High Court judgment later set aside by the Supreme Court, is sustainable? Petitioner (Satguru Steels) argued that the refund amount directed by the Deputy Commissioner State Tax (Appeals) should be released, subject to any appeal the revenue might file. The petitioner sought to enforce the order of the appellate authority. Respondent (State of Punjab and another/Assistant Commissioner State Tax) argued that the precedent relied upon by the Deputy Commissioner State Tax (Appeals) in its order dated 16.06.2022, namely the High Court's decision in M/s Shiv Enterprises Vs. State of Punjab and others, had been set aside by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.359 of 2023. Therefore, the basis of the appellate order was vitiated.
Sections Cited
Section 130
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
: 1 : CWP-17400-2023 CWP-4202-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
115/262
2024:PHHC:028692 CWP-17400-2023 Date of Decision:- 29.02.2024 CWP-4202-2024
The Assistant Commissioner State Tax, Mobile Wing, Chandigarh-2, ...Petitioner Vs. M/s Satguru Steels and another ...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr.Mukul Singla, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.Saurabh Kapoor, Addl.AG, Punjab.
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral)
Both the aforesaid writ petitions have been taken up together as the issue raised by the respective petitioners is in relation to order dated 16.06.2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner State Tax (Appeals), Patiala Division whereby it was held as under:-
“xx xxx xx xxx xx xxx Thus invocation of section 130 in the present case is unwarranted and is liable to be set aside as there is no attempt to evade the payment of tax to the State of Punjab and the law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP No.18392 of 2021 decided on 04.02.2022 titled as M/s Shiv Enterprises Vs. State of Punjab and others is followed. The appeal of the appellant is accepted and the penalty order dated 16.06.2021 passed by Assistant Commissioner State Tax, Mobile Wing Chandigarh-2 at Shambu is set aside and directed to refund the amount of Rs.5,21,694/- to the appellant”. SUDHIR KUMAR 2024.03.06 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
: 2 : CWP-17400-2023 CWP-4202-2024
Learned counsel appearing for the revenue submits that the judgment passed in CWP No.18392 of 2021 decided on 04.02.2022 in M/s Shiv Enterprises Vs. State of Punjab and others” relied upon hereinabove, has been set aside by the Hon’ble Apex Court in its order dated 16.01.2023 passed in Civil Appeal No.359 of 2023 titled as “The State of Punjab Vs. M/s Shiv Enterprises and others.
The petitioner, on the other hand, had 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).
Taking note of the contentions raised by both the learned counsel for the parties and also taking into consideration the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner State Tax (Appeals), Patiala Division, we find that before we decide, it would be apposite to quote the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.359 of 2023 titled as “The State of Punjab Vs. M/s Shiv Enterprises and others” wherein it has been held as under:- SUDHIR KUMAR 2024.03.06 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
: 3 : CWP-17400-2023 CWP-4202-2024
“6. 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 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.”
Keeping in view of the above observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court and finding that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner State Tax (Appeals), Patiala Division relies on 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 SUDHIR KUMAR 2024.03.06 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
: 4 : CWP-17400-2023 CWP-4202-2024
pass a detailed speaking order after 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 15.03.2024. 8. Both the aforesaid writ petition stands disposed of.
Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected case.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA)
JUDGE
2024
(SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE
SUDHIR KUMAR 2024.03.06 16:17 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.