Goyal Wood Industires Maur Road, Rampura Phul vs. State Of Punjab And Others
Held
The Court held that the writ petition was premature. The State of Punjab, through its counsel, made a categorical stand that the impugned demand notice dated 19.04.2022 was not a final order. The State assured the Court that the petitioner's representations would be considered, and a final order would be passed in due course. Furthermore, the State conceded that the demand would not be pressed against the petitioner until such a final order was issued. In light of this concession, the Court found no reason to interfere at this stage. The Court explicitly stated that it had not examined the issue on merits. Therefore, the writ petition was disposed of as premature.
Facts
The petitioner, Goyal Wood Industries, filed a writ petition before the Punjab & Haryana High Court challenging a demand notice issued in Form GST DRC-07 dated April 19, 2022. This demand notice was stated to be an order under Section 74(9) of the Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and Section 74(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The respondents, represented by the State of Punjab, acknowledged that the impugned demand was not a final order. They stated that the petitioner's pending representations/objections would be considered, and a final order would be passed in due course. The State further conceded that the demand notice would not be enforced against the petitioner until a final order was issued.
Key Issues
1. Whether the demand notice dated 19.04.2022, issued under Section 74(9) of the Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and Section 74(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is a final and appealable order at this stage? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner challenged the demand notice as an actionable order requiring immediate attention or challenge. Revenue's contention: The State of Punjab, through its counsel, conceded that the impugned demand was not in the nature of a final/detailed order. They argued that the petitioner's representations would be considered, and a final order would be passed subsequently. They also agreed not to press the impugned demand until the final order was issued.
Sections Cited
Section 74(9)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-9264-2022 (O&M)
Date of decision:04.05.2022 Goyal Wood Industries ... Petitioner Vs.
State of Punjab & others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN.
Present: Mr. Aman Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. ... TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J. (ORAL).
Instant writ petition is directed against the demand in terms of GST DRC-07 dated 19.04.2022 at Annexure P-38.
Perusal of the impugned demand is referred to as an order under Section 74(9) of the Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Section 74(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Since an advance copy of the writ petition had already been served upon the respondents, Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab has entered appearance and takes a stand that the impugned demand is not in the nature of a final/detailed order. Learned State counsel takes a fair stand that the representations/objections, which already stands filed by the petitioner would be considered and a final order would be passed in due course. Still further, i
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.