Rajnandini Metal LTD. vs. Union Of INDIA And Others
Held
The Court found that the petitioner was aggrieved by the blocking of its Input Tax Credit and had lodged a representation with respondent No.2. In light of this, the Court deemed it appropriate to dispose of the petition by directing respondent No.2 to decide the petitioner's representation in accordance with the law. This decision was to be made by passing a speaking order within seven days of receiving a certified copy of the Court's order. The petitioner was directed to appear before respondent No.2 on 10.12.2021 at 10:00 am or on any other date specified by the authority. The Court did not decide on the merits of the blocked ITC itself, but rather on the procedural aspect of deciding the representation.
Facts
The petitioner, Rajnandini Metal Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging the action of the respondents (Union of India and others) in blocking its Input Tax Credit (ITC). The petitioner had previously submitted a representation dated 10.11.2021 to respondent No.2, raising objections to the blocking of its ITC. The court considered the petition and the pending representation.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court should direct respondent No.2 to decide the petitioner's representation regarding the blocked Input Tax Credit. The petitioner argued that respondent No.2 should be directed to pass a speaking order on their representation concerning the blocked ITC. The respondents did not present any arguments in opposition to this direction.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CWP-23917-2021 Date of Decision: 06.12.2021 Rajnandini Metal Ltd. ....Petitioner Versus Union of India and others
.....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present : Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Aman Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anshuman Chopra, Advocate, for the respondents. AJAY TEWARI
, J. (Oral)
We find that by this petition the petitioner is aggrieved of the action taken by the respondents in blocking the Input Tax Credit of the petitioner. We further find that by way of representation dated 10.11.2021 (Annexure P-14), the petitioner has raised a grievance before respondent No.2 and had objected to the blocking of the Input Tax Credit. In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this petition with a direction to respondent No.2 to decide the said representation in accordance with law by passing a speaking order thereon within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. For this purpose, the petitioner is directed to appear before respondent No.2 on
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.