Jupiter Laminators PVT LTD vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Jupiter Laminators Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging a communication dated 24.10.2018 by respondent No.3, which concluded proceedings regarding service tax on remuneration paid to directors. The petitioner also challenged a show cause notice dated 30.10.2019 issued by respondent No.2, proposing to reject a refund application of Rs.192,61,830/-. The High Court had issued notice of motion on 01.06.2020. During subsequent proceedings, it was brought to the Court's attention that an order dated 05.08.2020 had been passed in furtherance of the show cause notice, and the petitioner had availed its remedy of appeal against this order. Consequently, the respondents argued that the writ petition had become infructuous.
Held
The Court held that the writ petition had become infructuous. This was based on the submission by the respondents that an order dated 05.08.2020 had been passed in furtherance of the show cause notice dated 30.10.2019, and the petitioner had availed its remedy of appeal against this subsequent order. The Court noted that in view of this development, no further orders were called for in the present writ petition. The ratio decidendi is that when a statutory remedy of appeal has been availed against an order that was the subject of a show cause notice, a writ petition challenging the earlier notice becomes infructuous. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition as having been rendered infructuous.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of the subsequent order passed by the respondents and the petitioner's availing of the appellate remedy? The petitioner sought to quash a communication and a show cause notice concerning service tax on director remuneration and a proposed refund rejection. The respondents argued that the present writ petition has become infructuous because an order has been passed pursuant to the show cause notice, and the petitioner has already availed its statutory remedy of appeal against that order. The petitioner's counsel did not present any counter-argument regarding the infructuousness of the petition.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
CWP-7591-2020 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 206 CWP-7591-2020 Date of decision: 09.03.2021 Jupiter Laminators Private Limited .....Petitioner versus Commissioner, Central goods & Services Tax and others ....Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jaswant Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice Girish Agnihotri Present: Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tajender Joshi, Advocate for the respondents. (the aforesaid presence is being recorded through video conferencing since the proceedings are being conducted in virtual court on account of restrictions due to COVID 19) **** GIRISH AGNIHOTRI, J. Petitioner-Jupiter Laminators Pvt. Ltd. through its Director Sh. Rajender Singh, has filed the present petition inter alia with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the communication dated 24.10.2018 (Annexure P-3), whereby respondent No.3 has concluded proceedings qua service tax on remuneration paid to Director and Show Cause Notice dated 30.10.2019 (Annexure P-5), whereby respondent No.2 has proposed to reject refund application of the petitioner. Further prayers have also been made as mentioned in the prayer clause of the present writ petition. Vide letter/Notice dated 30.10.2019, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, CGST Division, Sonipat, it had written to the petitioner to ANJU RANI 2021.03.16 14:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH
CWP-7591-2020 2 show cause as to why refund of service tax amounting to Rs.192,61,830/-, should not be rejected. Records of the case show that vide order dated 01.06.2020, this Court, after noticing the contention of counsel for the petitioner, had issued notice of motion. Today, on the resumed hearing of the case, it has been brought to the notice of the Court that in furtherance to the show cause notice dated 30.10.2019 (Annexure P-5), an order dated 05.08.2020 has been passed by the respondents and the petitioner has availed its remedy of appeal against the aforesaid order dated 05.08.2020. Therefore, counsel for the respondents submits that the present writ petition has become infructuous. The petitioner, if so advised, may challenge the orders passed in furtherance of the Show-cause notice.
In view of the above position, this Court is of the view that no further orders are called for in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.
(JASWANT SINGH) (GIRISH AGNIHOTRI) JUDGE JUDGE
2021 anju rani Whether speaking/ reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No ANJU RANI 2021.03.16 14:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH
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.