M/S Stalwart Alloys INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. State Of Haryana And Others
Held
The Court accepted the statement made by the learned State counsel. The Court noted that the State's counsel had undertaken to supply the requisite document to the petitioner if the petitioner approached the 3rd respondent, the Assistant Excise & Taxation Officer, Sonipat. Based on this undertaking, the Court found no further directions to be necessary. The petition was disposed of on this basis, implying that the issue of supplying the penalty order copy would be resolved by the respondent authority as stated. The Court did not delve into the merits of the penalty itself or the legality of the detention, as the primary prayer was for the supply of the order.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Stalwart Alloys India Pvt. 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-8738 on 25.10.2021. The respondents, including the State of Haryana, were served with an advance copy of the petition. The Assistant Excise & Taxation Officer, Sonipat (Haryana), was identified as the 3rd respondent and the authority responsible for supplying the document.
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-8738 on 25.10.2021? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they are entitled to a copy of the penalty order to understand the basis of the imposition and potentially challenge it. They sought a direction from the Court to compel the respondent authority to provide this document. Revenue/State's contention: The State of Haryana, through its counsel, made a fair statement that if the petitioner approaches the 3rd respondent (Assistant Excise & Taxation Officer, Sonipat), the requisite document would be supplied. No specific legal arguments or reliance on provisions were recorded for the revenue.
Sections Cited
Section 129
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-15705-2022 (O&M) Date of decision:22.07.2022 M/s Stalwart Alloys India Pvt. Ltd. ... Petitioner versus State of Haryana & others ... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN. Present: Ms.Chinansha, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Shruti Jain Goel, DAG, 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-8738 on 25.10.2021. An advance copy already stood served upon the respondents. Ms. Shruti Jain Goel, DAG, 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 DHINDSA)
JUD
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.