M/S Stalwart Alloys INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. State Of Haryana And Others
Held
The Court accepted the fair stand taken by the learned State counsel. The counsel for the State of Haryana assured the Court that if the petitioner approaches the Assistant Excise & Taxation Officer, Sonipat (Haryana), the requisite document (the penalty order) would be supplied. Based on this statement, the Court found no further directions to be required. The principle established is that when the revenue authority undertakes to supply a requested document upon approach by the assessee, the High Court may dispose of the writ petition on that basis, without delving into the merits of the penalty itself. The Court did not decide on the validity of the penalty or the grounds for its imposition, as the primary issue was the supply of the order.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Stalwart Alloys India Ltd., filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the competent authority to supply a copy of an order imposing penalty under Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017. This penalty was related to the detention of vehicle No. HR45-B-1225 on 25.10.2021. The respondents, including the State of Haryana, were served with an advance copy of the petition. The Additional Advocate General for Haryana appeared on behalf of the respondents. The dispute concerns the non-receipt of the penalty order by the petitioner.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the respondent-authority to supply a copy of the order imposing penalty under Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017, concerning the detention of vehicle No. HR45-B-1225 on 25.10.2021? The petitioner argued that they have not received the copy of the penalty order and are seeking its supply to understand the basis of the imposition and to pursue further legal remedies. The respondents, through the learned State counsel, stated that if the petitioner approaches the Assistant Excise & Taxation Officer, Sonipat (Haryana), the requisite document would be supplied. No specific arguments were recorded for the respondents beyond this statement.
Sections Cited
Section 129
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-24990-2022 (O&M)
Date of Decision:31.10.2022 M/s Stalwart Alloys India Ltd. .......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present:- Mr. Nitish Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Randhir Singh, Addl. A.G. Haryana. ***** TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA J.(Oral) Petitioner seeks a mandamus for directing the competent authority/respondent to supply copy of the order in pursuance to the imposition of penalty under Section 129 of the CGST Act 2017 regarding detention of vehicle No.HR45-B-1225 on 25.10.2021. An advance copy already stood served upon the respondents. Mr. Randhir Singh, Addl. A.G. Haryana, has entered appearance on behalf of respondents. A very fair stand has been taken that in case the petitioner approaches the 3rd respondent i.e. Assistant Excise & Taxation Officer, Sonipat (Haryana), the requisite document would be supplied. Statement made by learned State counsel is accepted. No further directions are required to be passed. Petition disposed of.
(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDS
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.