M/S Mishra Brothers vs. Union Of INDIA

CW/4038/2024HC RajasthanGSTCNR RJHC02020995202418 March 2025Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,MANEESH SHARMA3 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

Facts

The petitioners, M/s Mishra Brothers and M/s. Manish Oil Product, have filed writ petitions challenging assessment orders and orders of the First Appellate Authority under the Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017. The specific tax periods and the exact authorities who passed the impugned orders are not detailed in the provided text. However, the petitions contest the demand for tax and penalties. The procedural history indicates that on March 19, 2024, the High Court issued notice to the respondents and, considering the similarity of issues with other pending petitions, granted interim protection. This protection stipulated that recovery proceedings for the balance disputed amount would be stayed, subject to the petitioner depositing the amount required under Section 112(8) of the CGST Act, 2017.

Held

The Court held that the interim order passed on March 19, 2024, shall continue until the decision of the appeal, provided the petitioner complies with the directions stipulated in that order, specifically the deposit of the amount under Section 112(8) of the CGST Act, 2017. The Court also directed that in the event the petitioner files an appeal within three months from the constitution of the tribunal, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. The reasoning for continuing the interim protection is based on maintaining parity with other connected matters where similar relief was granted. The Court did not explicitly decide the merits of the assessment or appellate orders, but rather focused on the procedural aspect of allowing the petitioner to pursue their appeal with interim relief.

Key Issues

1. Whether the interim protection granted by this Court on March 19, 2024, should continue until the disposal of the appeal, subject to the petitioner's compliance with the deposit condition under Section 112(8) of the CGST Act, 2017? The petitioner's argument, implied by the Court's order, is that parity with other cases where interim protection was granted should be maintained. The revenue's argument is not explicitly recorded, but their appearance indicates they would contest the continuation of the stay. 2. Whether the appeal, to be filed by the petitioner within three months from the constitution of the tribunal, should be considered in accordance with law? The petitioner's stance is that their appeal should be entertained and decided on merits. The revenue's position on this is not recorded.

Sections Cited

Section 112(8)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

[2025:RJ-JP:12208-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4038/2024 M/s Mishra Brothers, C-108 Siksha Vihar, Block-C, Behind Sunrise Apartment, Skit Road Jaipur-302017 (Rajasthan) Through Its Partner Rajendra Kumar Mishra S/o Sh. Madan Lal Mishra ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of India, New Delhi 2. The Chief Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax, Statue Circle, C Scheme, Jaipur. 3. The State Of Rajasthan Through Chief Commissioner, State Goods And Service Tax, Kar Bhawan, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur. 4. Assistant Commissioner (State Tax), Ward-Ii, Circle-I, Jaipur -Ii, Jaipur. 5. Appellate Authority, State Tax, Jaipur-Ii, Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Respondents Connected With D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6093/2024 M/s. Manish Oil Product, F-75, Riico Industrial Area, Bharatpur- 321001 Through Its Authorized Signatory Manish Kumar Bansal S/o S D Bansal ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through Finance Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India, New Delhi. 2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Commissioner, State Goods And Service Tax, Kar Bhawan, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur. 3. The Principal Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax, Statue Circle, C Scheme, Jaipur. 4. The Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax, Division-F, Bharatpur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Paridhi Jain with Mr. Nikhil Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajay Shukla with Mr. Raghav Sharma Mr. Kartikeya Sharma for Mr. Sandeep Taneja, AAG [2025:RJ-JP:12208-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-4038/2024] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA

Order 18/03/2025 AVNEESH JHINGAN, J. (ORAL)

These petitions are being decided by common order as the facts and issues involved are similar. For convenience, the facts are being taken from D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4038/2024. 2. This petition has been filed challenging the assessment order passed under the Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, and order of the First Appellate Authority dated 19.02.2024. 3. On 19.03.2024, the following order was passed:- “Heard. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F. within a week, returnable within four weeks. List this case on 08.05.2024 along with D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8937/2023 and other connected matters. Mr. Ajay Shukla, learned counsel puts appearance on behalf of respondent Nos.1 & 2 and Mr. Jai Lodha, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 5. Taking into consideration the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue involved in this petition is identical and has been raised in the aforesaid two writ petitions, wherein, subject to fulfillment of certain conditions imposed on the petitioner therein, interim protection was granted, in order to maintain parity, we are also inclined to pass interim order to the effect that subject to deposit of the amount by the petitioner under Section 112 of sub-section (8) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the recovery proceedings for the balance amount of the disputed amount shall be deemed to be stayed, till the next date of hearing.”

[2025:RJ-JP:12208-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-4038/2024]

This petition is disposed of with direction that in the eventuality of the petitioner filing the appeal within three months from the constitution of the tribunal, the same shall be considered in accordance with law.

The interim order passed by this Court on 19.03.2024, shall continue till the decision of the appeal subject to the compliance of directions given therein. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J SAHIL SONI/ RIYA/177-178

Reproduced from the public record of the Rajasthan High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.