Bharat Aluminium Company Limited vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The petitioner, Bharat Aluminium Company Limited, sought to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file it afresh. The Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and noting that there was no objection from the other side, allowed the withdrawal. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court granted the petitioner liberty to revive the petition if any further cause of action survives. No specific findings were made on the merits of the issues raised by the petitioner, as the petition was disposed of on the procedural ground of withdrawal. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn with liberty to refile.

Facts

The petitioner, Bharat Aluminium Company Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Chhattisgarh challenging an order dated April 30, 2024, issued by the Joint Commissioner State Tax, Bilaspur (Respondent No. 4). The petitioner also sought to set aside notices dated December 26, 2023, and December 29, 2023, issued by Respondent No. 4. Furthermore, the petition aimed to declare that Respondent No. 4 was not empowered to initiate fresh scrutiny proceedings by way of a second ASMT-10 or impose GST on issues not covered under ASMT-10. The petitioner also challenged the recommendation in Agenda 4(vii) of the 49th GST Council Meeting and subsequent notifications extending the time limit under Section 73 of the CGST and CHGST Acts, deeming them ultra vires Section 168A. The petitioner sought interim relief to stay the impugned order and prevent recovery of GST, interest, or penalty.

Key Issues

1. Whether Respondent No. 4 is empowered to demand GST by initiating fresh scrutiny proceedings through a second ASMT-10 or imposing GST on issues not covered under ASMT-10, and whether the impugned order and notices issued by Respondent No. 4 are legally valid and proper? 2. Whether the recommendation in Agenda 4(vii) of the 49th GST Council Meeting and the subsequent notifications extending the time limit under Section 73 of the CGST Act and Section 73 of the CHGST Act are ultra vires Section 168A of the CGST Act and CHGST Act, as they were allegedly issued without fulfilling precedent conditions? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the Joint Commissioner (Respondent No. 4) lacked the power to initiate fresh scrutiny proceedings via a second ASMT-10 and to impose GST on matters outside the scope of the initial ASMT-10. They also contended that the extension of time limits under Section 73, as notified, was beyond the legislative competence and violated Section 168A of the respective Acts. The petitioner sought quashing of the impugned order and notices, and a declaration that the extension notifications were ultra vires. Respondents' Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents in opposition to the petitioner's claims. The counsel for the Union of India, State of Chhattisgarh, and CGST/Central Excise were present.