Hindalco Industries Limited vs. The Union Of INDIA Through The Secretary And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the issue raised in the writ petition had indeed become purely academic and infructuous due to subsequent developments, particularly the enactment of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the statements made by the revenue authorities in their affidavit-in-reply. The Court noted that the revenue's statement in paragraph 10 of the affidavit clarified the position regarding the disputed amount of Rs. 5,07,59,409/-, indicating that no recovery action would be taken by the department irrespective of the outcome of the pending revision applications, due to the transitional provisions. The Petitioner was granted leave to delete prayer clauses (b) and (c) of the writ petition. The Court also recalled its earlier order imposing costs of Rs. 25,000/- on the respondents, directing that the amount be returned to them, acknowledging the fair stand of the Petitioner and its counsel. The Writ Petition and the Civil Application were disposed of.

Facts

The Petitioner, Hindalco Industries Limited, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an action by the revenue authorities. The dispute involved an amount of Rs. 5,07,59,409/- related to protective demand show cause notices. The Petitioner had revision applications pending with the Revision Authority concerning these notices. The revenue authorities, in their affidavit, stated that if the Petitioner succeeded in the revision, no further action would be taken for recovery of the disputed amount. Conversely, if the Petitioner failed, they would be required to pay the amount and claim it as credit, but due to Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, it would have to be paid in cash. The revenue further stated that even in case of failure, no recovery action would be taken due to transitional provisions under the CGST Act, rendering the proceedings academic.

Key Issues

1. Whether the issue raised in the writ petition has become academic and infructuous in light of subsequent developments, specifically the enactment of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the statements made by the revenue authorities in their affidavit-in-reply? Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner, through its counsel, argued that the issue raised in the writ petition had become academic due to the statements made by the respondents in paragraph 10 of their affidavit-in-reply, particularly concerning the transitional provisions under the CGST Act, 2017, and the pending revision applications. The Petitioner also sought leave to delete certain prayer clauses from the petition. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through its counsel, contended that the revision applications filed by the Petitioner pertaining to protective demand show cause notices were pending. They submitted that if the Petitioner succeeded, no further recovery action would be taken for the disputed amount of Rs. 5,07,59,409/-. If the Petitioner failed, the amount would be payable in cash as per Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, and no recovery action would be initiated by the department due to the transitional provisions. Therefore, the Revenue argued that the writ petition should be dismissed as there was no gain for either party.