Nikhat vs. The Union Of INDIA And 2 Others
Facts
The petitioner, Nikhat, filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging two notices dated 28.10.2021 and 02.12.2021, issued by respondent no. 3. These notices were summons issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The first summons had a fixed date of 28.10.2021, and the second had a fixed date of 08.12.2021. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash these notices and a writ of mandamus to prevent coercive action. The High Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Held
The Court held that there were no grounds presented by the petitioner to interfere with the summons issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner's counsel completely failed to disclose any valid reason for the court to intervene. Consequently, the court found no good reason to entertain the writ petition. The ratio decidendi is that a writ petition challenging summons issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act will be dismissed if the petitioner fails to demonstrate any valid grounds for interference. The operative direction was the dismissal of the writ petition.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned notices dated 28.10.2021 and 02.12.2021, issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, are liable to be quashed by a writ of certiorari? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner sought to quash the notices and prevent coercive action. However, the judgment records that the learned counsel for the petitioner "has completely failed to disclose before us any ground to interfere with the summons." Therefore, no specific arguments or reliance on provisions, circulars, or precedents were recorded for the petitioner. Respondent's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. However, the court's decision implies that the respondents' action of issuing the summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act was considered valid in the absence of any grounds presented by the petitioner to interfere with it.
Sections Cited
Section 70
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 165 of 2022 Petitioner :- Nikhat Respondent :- The Union Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Narendra Kumar,Ranjeet Asthana Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Dileep Chandra Mathur Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
This writ petition has been filed with the following relief: "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash impugned notice dated 28.10.2021 and 02.12.2021 issued by respondent no.3, which contained as Annexure Nos.2 & 3 to the writ petition; (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to the respondents authorities not to take any coercive action in pursuant to impugned notice dated 28.10.2021 and 02.12.2021 during pendency of the petition in the interest of justice"
The impugned notice/summons dated 28.10.2021, 02.12.2021, issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The date fixed in the first summon was 28.10.2021.
The date fixed in the second summon was 08.12.2021.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has completely failed to disclose before us any ground to interfe
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 Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.