M/S Shapoorji Pallonji And Co PVT LTD Through Its Authorized Signatory Vinod Lalwani vs. Union Of INDIA Through The Secretary Deptt Of Revenue

Held

The Court considered the submission made by the petitioner. The substantive prayer was to question the validity of Rule 118 of the CGST Rules, 2017, as being ultra vires to Section 142(11)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017. An interlocutory application was filed to amend the prayer to include challenging a show cause notice dated 29.09.2023, which the petitioner argued was also in teeth of Section 142(11)(c). The petitioner sought leave to withdraw the writ petition to file a consolidated one challenging both the provision and the notice. Since there was no opposition from the relevant respondents, the Court allowed the withdrawal. The Court held that the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition challenging the validity of Rule 118 of the CGST Rules, 2017, and implicitly, the subsequent demand notice. No specific finding was made on the merits of the challenge to Rule 118 or the show cause notice.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Pvt Ltd, filed a writ petition challenging the validity of Rule 118 of the CGST Rules, 2017, asserting it was ultra vires to Section 142(11)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an interlocutory application seeking to amend the prayer to also challenge a show cause notice dated 29.09.2023, which was issued against them. The petitioner argued that this show cause notice was also in contravention of Section 142(11)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner then sought leave to withdraw the current writ petition to file a consolidated petition challenging both the validity of Section 142(11)(c) and the subsequent demand notice.

Key Issues

1. Whether Rule 118 of the CGST Rules, 2017, is ultra vires to Section 142(11)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017? 2. Whether the show cause notice dated 29.09.2023 is in contravention of Section 142(11)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that Rule 118 of the CGST Rules, 2017, is ultra vires to Section 142(11)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017. They further contended that the subsequently issued show cause notice dated 29.09.2023 was also in direct violation of Section 142(11)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017. Due to these grounds and the issuance of the show cause notice, the petitioner sought to withdraw the present writ petition to file a fresh, consolidated writ petition challenging both the provision and the notice. Respondents' Contention: The judgment records no opposition from respondent nos. 3, 4, and 5 (represented by Mr. Amit Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel, CGST) to the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition.