M/S Devraj And Wheaton Enterprises vs. Chief Commissioner
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Devraj And Wheaton Enterprises, challenged a notice dated 28.05.2018 issued under Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Section 142 of the Customs Act, 1962. This notice was for the recovery of a demand previously upheld by the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in an order dated 27.03.2017. The petitioner had purchased an industrial plot from M/s Rob Mathys (India) Pvt. Ltd., the original assessee against whom proceedings under the aforementioned Acts were pending. The sale transaction occurred during the pendency of these proceedings, leading to the impugned recovery notice being issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a reply to this notice on 19.07.2018. The writ petition was filed without awaiting the outcome of this response.
Held
The Court held that the writ petition was premature. The petitioner had filed the petition challenging the recovery notice dated 28.05.2018 without waiting for the outcome of their reply dated 19.07.2018, which was submitted in response to the said notice. The Court did not delve into the merits of the demand or the petitioner's liability, as the primary ground for dismissal was the procedural prematurity of the writ petition. Therefore, the operative direction was to dismiss the petition on this ground, leaving the substantive issues regarding the recovery and the petitioner's liability undecided in this forum.
Key Issues
1. Whether the notice dated 28.05.2018, issued under Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Section 142 of the Customs Act, 1962, for recovery of a demand upheld by the CESTAT, is maintainable against the petitioner, who is a subsequent purchaser of an industrial plot from the original assessee. The petitioner argued that the notice was premature as it was filed without awaiting the response to their reply dated 19.07.2018. The revenue's contention, implied by the issuance of the notice and the subsequent dismissal of the petition, was that the recovery proceedings were validly initiated against the petitioner as a successor in interest or in relation to the property involved in the original demand.
Sections Cited
Section 11, Central Excise Act, 1944, Section 142, Customs Act, 1962
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
[2024:RJ-JP:9193-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23347/2018
M/s Devraj And Wheaton Enterprises, Through Partner Smt. Bhawna Jagwani Wheaton, 42, Sanjay Marg, Hathroi Jaipur, Rajasthan
Smt Bhawna Jagwani Wheaton, W/o Shri Samiir Wheaton, Partner, M/s. Devraj And Wheaton Enterprises, 42, Sanjay Marg, Hathroi Jaipur, Rajasthan ----Petitioners Versus
Chief Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax, Jaipur Zone, Ncr Building, Statue Circle, C Scheme, Jaipur
Superintendent Of Central Excise, Goods And Service Tax Range Xxiii, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Sector 10, Jaipur
Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Malviya Industrial Area, Jaipur Through Managing Director Head Office Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
M/s. Rob Mathys (India) Pvt. Ltd., Through Proprietor Shri Anil Dhawan, A-4/a, Mahavir Udyan Marg, Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur - 302017. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Anita Aggarwal with Mr. Laxmikant For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kinshuk Jain Ms. Pragya Sethia HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA Order 22/02/2024 AVNEESH JHINGAN, J(ORAL)
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 Rajasthan High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.