M/S Swastik Steel Corporation vs. State Of Haryana And Another

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was premature. The reasoning was that the petitioner had already filed a response to the notices issued under Section 74 of the Haryana GST Act, 2017. Therefore, it was not appropriate for the High Court to intervene at this stage. The Court found that the petitioner should pursue the available statutory remedies for adjudication of the notices. The ratio decidendi is that a writ petition challenging show cause notices under GST law is pre-mature if the assessee has already filed a reply to those notices, and the statutory adjudication process is underway. The Court did not grant any specific relief but dismissed the petition as not pressed.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Swastik Steel Corporation, filed a writ petition challenging a notice in Form GST DRC-01 and a show cause notice dated September 4, 2023, issued under Section 74 of the Haryana GST Act, 2017. The respondents are the State of Haryana and another authority. The petitioner has already filed a response to these notices. The Court noted that the writ petition was filed before the adjudication of the notices, making it premature.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition challenging notices issued under Section 74 of the Haryana GST Act, 2017, is maintainable when the petitioner has already filed a response to such notices? The petitioner argued that the notices were illegal and sought their quashing. However, the petitioner did not press the writ petition. The revenue (State of Haryana) contended that since the petitioner had already filed a response to the notices, the writ petition was premature and the petitioner should pursue the statutory remedies available. The revenue relied on the principle that courts should not interfere at an intermediate stage of adjudication.