Ms Ads Spirits PVT LTD Jhajjar vs. Union Of INDIA And Others
Facts
The petitioner, M/s. ADS Spirits Pvt. Ltd., received a notice under Section 73 of the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, from the State of Haryana, to which it responded. Subsequently, another notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, by the Central Government Authorities. The petitioner submitted that the earlier notice from the State was answered and the tax was paid. The petitioner's counsel stated that the respondents shall pass an appropriate speaking order. The High Court was considering a writ petition concerning these notices.
Held
The Court noted that the petitioner had submitted a reply to the notice issued under Section 73 of the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and had also paid the tax. It was further submitted that a notice under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, had been issued by the Central Government Authorities. The Court expected the respondents to pass a speaking order. The writ petition was disposed of with the observation that if the petitioner remains aggrieved, they are free to avail appropriate remedies in accordance with the law. The Court did not explicitly decide on the legality of the dual notices but allowed the petitioner to pursue further remedies if dissatisfied with the speaking order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the issuance of a notice under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, by the Central Government Authorities is appropriate when a notice under Section 73 of the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, has already been issued and responded to by the petitioner, and the tax has been paid. This issue turns on the interpretation and application of Section 73 and Section 74 of the respective GST Acts. Contentions: Petitioner: Argued that the earlier notice under Section 73 of the HGST Act was addressed, and the tax was paid. The subsequent notice under Section 74 of the CGST Act by Central Authorities is therefore questionable. Revenue: No specific arguments recorded for the revenue in the provided text.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 74
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
118 IN TH M/s. ADS SP SIGNATORY
UNION OF IN DEPARTMEN OTHERS
CORAM: H
H
Present: M
M M M f
* SANJEEV PR
L notice under was served up and the tax w another notice 2017 has be Authorities.
T Government A speaking orde HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR
CWP-2 Date of PIRITS PVT. LTD., JHAJJAR T SH. RAVINDER KUMAR GUPT
V NDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETA NT OF REVENUE, NORTH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ Mr. Rajiv Agnihotri, Advocate fo Ms. Ridhi Bansal, Advocate for Mr. Sunish Bindlish, Advocate fo Ms. Tanisha Peshawaria, DAG, H for respondents No.2 and 8 to 10 ***** RAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitio Section 73 of the Haryana Goo pon the petitioner by the State o was also paid. It is further submi e under Section 74 of the Centra een issued to the petitioner The petitioner may file reply to Authorities and it is expected th er. AB AND HARYANA AT RH 22698-2024 (O&M) f Decision:09.09.2024 THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED TA
..…...Petitioners (s) V/s. TARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, BLOCK, NEW DELHI AND …......Respondent(s) NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH or the petitioner. for the respondent/revenue. Hary
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.