Eversub INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. Union Of INDIA And Anr.

Held

The Court noted that the petitioner had filed a reply to FORM GST DRC-01A dated 17.07.2023 on 28.07.2023. In light of this development, the Court was of the opinion that the petition could be disposed of. The Court directed that further proceedings should be conducted in accordance with law. The petitioner was granted liberty to revive the petition if required. The Court did not explicitly rule on the validity of the Circular or the summons, as the proceedings were disposed of based on the subsequent filing of the reply to FORM GST DRC-01A. The reasoning was that the petitioner had engaged with the process by filing a reply to the notice of liability, allowing the statutory process to continue.

Facts

The petitioner, Eversub India Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging Circular No. 3/3/2017-GST dated 05.07.2017, which assigned functions under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, to respondent No. 3. The petitioner also challenged summons dated 13.04.2022 and 25.05.2022 issued by respondent No. 3 in connection with inquiry proceedings under Section 70 of the CGST Act. During the court proceedings, the petitioner supplied certain documents as requested by the respondents. Subsequently, the respondents issued FORM GST DRC-01A on 17.07.2023, informing the petitioner of its tax liability. The petitioner filed a reply to this form on 28.07.2023.

Key Issues

1. Whether Circular No. 3/3/2017-GST dated 05.07.2017, assigning functions under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, to respondent No. 3, is legally sustainable? (Question of law) 2. Whether the summons dated 13.04.2022 and 25.05.2022 issued by respondent No. 3 are valid, given the petitioner's challenge to the circular? (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the circular assigning functions under Section 70 of the CGST Act to respondent No. 3 was not legally tenable and, consequently, the summons issued based on such assignment were also invalid. The petitioner sought to set aside both the circular and the summons. Respondents' contentions: The respondents submitted that the petitioner had been informed of its tax liability vide FORM GST DRC-01A dated 17.07.2023. They also noted that the petitioner had supplied requested documents and subsequently filed a reply to the FORM GST DRC-01A.