M/S Kool Tech Infra @ Logistics vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner had not approached the concerned authority by filing a representation under Section 74(9) of the Central GST Act, 2017, despite a notice being issued on 20.04.2022. The Court noted that the petitioner had duly replied to a similar demand notice issued under the Act previously. Therefore, the Court was of the considered opinion that before availing the extraordinary writ jurisdiction, it would be appropriate for the petitioner to file a representation before the concerned authority. This would allow the authority to pass an order considering the petitioner's objections. The Court explicitly stated that it had not commented on the merits of the case or adjudicated on the vires of the provisions of the Act at this stage. The petitioner was granted liberty to challenge the order if any adverse findings were recorded subsequently.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Kool Tech Infra & Logistics, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 20.04.2022 issued by respondent No. 6. The notice alleged that the petitioner was ineligible to claim Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 50,39,347/- for the quarter ending June 2017. The petitioner argued that a prior notice dated 06.04.2022 concerning the same issue under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1955, had already been issued, leading to an order dated 30.08.2023, which is now under appeal. The petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court due to these circumstances.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner has exhausted the available alternative remedy of filing a representation before the concerned authority under Section 74(9) of the Central GST Act, 2017, before invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court? The petitioner contended that a similar notice had been issued previously, and an order was passed, which is now under appeal. They implied that approaching the authority again might be redundant or that the current notice is based on a flawed premise. The petitioner also challenged the vires of certain provisions of the Act. The revenue or State did not record any specific arguments in the judgment.
Sections Cited
Section 74
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:149194 -DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(110)
CWP-26339-2023 Decided on : 23.11.2023 M/s Kool Tech Infra & Logistics ……Petitioner(s) Versus Union of India & others
……Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present: Mr.Sandeep Goyal, Advocate
Mr.Rishab Singla, Advocate
Mr.Gaurav Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner (s).
***** G.S. Sandhawalia, J. (Oral)
Challenge in the present writ petition, filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to the notice dated 20.04.2022 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondent No.6 wherein on account of having closing balance of Rs.50,39,347/- as Cenvat credit returns for the quarter ending June, 2017, the said notice had been issued on the ground that the petitioner was not eligible to take credit of the duty on inputs or tax on input services.
The argument which has been raised by counsel for the petitioner is that the earlier notice dated 06.04.2022 (Annexure P-6) had been i
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.