Judgment
2026:HHC:15352 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.13383 of 2024 Date of decision: 07.05.2026 M/s Saboo Tor Pvt. Ltd.
...Petitioner.
Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …Respondents.
Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner :
Mr.
J.S.
Bedi, Advocate with Mr.
Goverdhan Lal Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents :
Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Sushant Keprate, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 & 3.
:
Mr.
Bharat Bhushan, Senior Panel Counsel, for respondent No.2-UOI.
Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge
Petitioner has approached this Court seeking following main substantial relief(s):- “i.
For issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari directing respondents for quashing the order i.e. DRC-07 dated 12.09.2024 (Annexure P-3), as the notices was issued and order was passed without issuing ASMT-10, beside this show cause notice was issued without appreciating the factual and legal position as petitioner has already paid the tax to the sellers and in his possession all the documents required for claiming the ITC and the petitioner cannot be forced to do the impossible act that seller has discharged its tax liability or not as passed in CWP no.1793 of 2024 in the case of Sanmati Metals vs State of Himachal Pradesh by the Honb. Himachal Pradesh High Court and in CWP No. 10248 of 2024 in the case of Radha Madhav Enterprises vs State of Punjab & Ors by the Honb.
Punjab & Haryana High Court and in CWP No. 4706 of 2024 in the
1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes
-2- 2026:HHC:15352
case of JHS Svendgaard Laboratories Limited vs. State of H.P. & others of Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court.
ii.
For issuance of a writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction calling for the records pertaining to the Petitioners’ case and after going into the validity and legality thereof to quash and set aside notices issued for denying the Input tax credit to the petitioner.”
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, at present, the petitioner does not press Relief No.ii, reserving the right to agitate the issue in an appropriate petition, if so desired.
3.
It has been further submitted that after issuance of Show Cause Notice DRC-01 dated 24.05.2024 (Annexure P-1), the petitioner had submitted a detailed reply along with documents claiming entitlement to the benefit of Input Tax Credit. However, without considering the same, order DRC-07 dated 12.09.2024 (Annexure P- 3) has been passed, which has been assailed as relief No.i in the present petition.
4.
Admittedly, while passing impugned order dated 12.09.2024 (Annexure P-3), response of the petitioner contained in the reply as well as documents filed therewith has not been considered.
5.
It has been further submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied, if the concerned authorities are directed to consider the claim/objections afresh along with documents filed/to be filed by or on behalf of the petitioner before the competent authority in response to the aforesaid summary show cause notice specifically dealing that whether payments on purchases in question, along with GST, were
-3- 2026:HHC:15352
actually paid or not to the supplier (RTP) and whether the transactions and purchases in question are genuine and supported by valid documents, and whether transactions and purchase in question were made before or after the cancellation of the supplier’s registration, as well as compliance with statutory obligations by the petitioner regarding verification of the identity of the supplier (RTP), in accordance with law, as applicable.
6.
It has been further submitted that, if upon consideration of the relevant documents, it is found that all purchases and transactions are genuine and supported by valid documents and were made prior to the cancellation of the supplier’s registration, the petitioner be granted the benefit of Input Tax Credit in question.
7.
Learned Advocate General submits that, in case, the petitioner files a fresh response to the summary show cause notice before the competent authority along with relevant documents to substantiate the claim of petitioner, the competent authority shall decide the same within a reasonable time.
8.
In view of above, order DRC-07 dated 12.09.2024 (Annexure P-3) is set aside and the present petition is disposed of by directing the competent authority to consider the objections along with documents, if so filed, within 30 days from today in response to the Show Cause Notice DRC-01 dated 24.05.2024 (Annexure P-1), by keeping in view the aforesaid submissions made by the petitioner and
-4- 2026:HHC:15352
to pass an appropriate speaking and reasoned order thereupon within 06 weeks from the date of filing of such objections/response in accordance with law. In case no objections are filed within 30 days in response to the show cause notice, the competent authority shall proceed further in accordance with law, treating that the petitioner has nothing to say in response to the said notice.
9.
Petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms along with pending applications, if any.
(Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge
(Ranjan Sharma) Judge 7th May, 2026 (Pardeep)