Ms Premsons Motor Udyog PVT LTD Represented Through Sri Punit Kumar Poddar vs. Union Of INDIA Through The Secretary Ministry Of Finance Deptt Of Revenue
Held
The Court did not decide the substantive issues raised by the petitioner. Instead, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ application. This request was made on instructions, stating that the issue concerning the payment of interest on net tax liability had been settled in view of administrative instructions issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs dated September 18, 2020. The respondents, representing the CGST and the State, did not object to this withdrawal. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. No specific findings were made on the validity of the circular or the demand notices, nor were any operative directions issued beyond dismissing the petition.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Premsons Motor Udyog Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court challenging a Circular dated February 10, 2020, issued by the Special Secretary and Member, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC). The petitioner also challenged demand notices dated February 14/17, 2020, and February 15, 2020, issued by the Deputy Commissioner and the Superintendent, respectively. These notices appear to be related to the recovery of interest on net tax liability under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. The petitioner sought to quash these notices and restrain the respondents from taking any action based on them.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned Circular dated February 10, 2020, issued by the CBIC under Section 168(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, read with Sections 50(1), 75(12), and 79, is legally sustainable? 2. Whether the demand notices dated February 14/17, 2020, and February 15, 2020, issued by the Deputy Commissioner and Superintendent, respectively, are valid and enforceable? The petitioner argued that the Circular and subsequent demand notices were liable to be quashed. The respondents, represented by the CGST and State authorities, did not object to the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ application.
Sections Cited
Section 168(1), Section 50(1), Section 75(12), Section 79
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P(T) No. 1293 of 2020
M/s. Premsons Motor Udyog Pvt. Ltd.
…. Petitioner Versus
Union of India
The Special Secretary & Member, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, New Delhi
The Principal Commissioner of Central tax, Goods & Service4 Tax & Central Excise, Ranchi Commissioner, Ranchi
The Deputy Commissioner (Prev.), Central Goods & Service Tax and Central Excise, Ranchi
The Superintendent, Central Goods & Central Excise, Range-I, Ranchi
The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Commercial Tax Department, Ranchi
… Respondents
CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Through Video Conferencing --- For the Petitioner : M/s. Nitin Kumar Pasari, Sidhi Jalan, Advocates
For the Respondent-CGST: Mr. P.A.S.Pati, Advocate
For the Respondent-State : Mr. Gaurav Raj, A.C to A.A.G-II
--- 03/01.03.2021
Writ petition was preferred for the following reliefs: (a) Writ(s), order(s), direction(s) quashing and se
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 Jharkhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.