M/S Piccadily Hotels Private Limited vs. State Of Haryana And Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Piccadily Hotels Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging a Clarification Order dated August 22, 2013, passed by respondent No. 2, and subsequent orders dated September 18, 2020, passed by respondent No. 3. The petitioner contended that these orders were illegal and violative of Article 246 of the Constitution of India. The orders under challenge were passed by relying on the aforementioned Clarification Order. The petitioner sought to quash both the Clarification Order and the subsequent orders. The amount in dispute is not explicitly stated. The procedural history involves the issuance of the Clarification Order, followed by the orders dated September 18, 2020, which are now being challenged.
Held
The Court held that the issue was no longer res integra, having been decided in a previous judgment titled "M/s Sodexo India Services Private Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and others" (CWP No.1173 of 2022, decided on April 24, 2024). In that case, the Court had quashed a similar clarification order dated August 22, 2013, finding it to be against settled law and based on a wrongful interpretation of sale in relation to catering business. The Court noted that the clarification failed to consider prior judgments of the High Court, such as in the case of "M/s Cap 'N' Chops Caterers", and amounted to overreaching the process of the Court. The ratio decidendi is that any clarification that contradicts or ignores established judicial precedent is illegal and liable to be set aside. The Court therefore set aside the orders dated September 18, 2020, as they were passed relying on the illegal Clarification Order. The Court directed that the law settled in "M/s Cap 'N' Chops Caterers" shall apply to all similar matters and directed the Principal Secretary, Excise and Taxation Department, Haryana, to issue a circular to prevent further litigation. The petition was allowed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Clarification Order dated August 22, 2013, passed by respondent No. 2 is violative of Article 246 of the Constitution of India and thus liable to be quashed? 2. Whether the orders dated September 18, 2020, passed by respondent No. 3, which relied upon the Clarification Order dated August 22, 2013, are illegal and liable to be set aside? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the Clarification Order dated August 22, 2013, was illegal and violative of Article 246 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, any orders passed relying on this illegal clarification, such as the orders dated September 18, 2020, were also illegal and liable to be quashed. The petitioner relied on previous judgments of the High Court, specifically mentioning "M/s Sodexo India Services Private Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and others" in CWP No.1173 of 2022 decided on April 24, 2024, and "M/s Cap 'N' Chops Caterers". Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents (State of Haryana and others).
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
CWP-3587-2021 --1-- 2024:PHHC:055775-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 241-1 CWP-3587-2021 Date of Decision: April 24, 2024 M/s Piccadily Hotels Pvt. Ltd. ......Petitioner(s) Vs. State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Amar Pratap Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Sharan Sethi, Addl. A.G. Haryana. ---- SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA.J. (ORAL) The petitioner has prayed as under:- I. Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari. Quashing the Clarification Order (Annexure P-1) Dated 22.08.2013 passed by respondent No2 as the same is violative of Article 246 of the Constitution of India:
Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the orders dated 18.09.2020 (Annexures P-4, P-7 & P-8) passed by respondent No.
As the same have been passed by relying upon the Clarification order dated 22.08.2013 which is illegal and violative of Article 246 of the Constitution of India III. Award Costs throughout to the petitioner.
After perusing the case file, we find that the orders dated 18.09.2020 (Annexures P-4, P-7 & P-8) are liable to be set aside, as the same have been passed by relying upon the clarification order dated 22.08.2013. This Court had Sonia Arora 2024.05.07 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP-3587-2021 --2-- 2024:PHHC:055775-DB already taken a view in a judgment titled as “M/s Sodexo India Services Private Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and others” in CWP No.1173 of 2022 decided on 18.04.2024 wherein this Court had held as under:-
Thus, we find that the issue is no more res integra and we follow the view already expressed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in relation to GSTR No.1 of 2009 decided on 07.09.2010 and held the action of the respondents in issuing show cause notice for revision of assessment, Annexure P/2 dated 17.08.2021, to be unjustified and based on wrongful interpretation of sale in relation to catering business. We also noticed that the clarification issued in M/s Renginton has failed to take notice of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of M/s Cap 'N' Chops Caterers (supra) and such interpretations may on whims and fancies without taking into consideration the law as settled by this Court and the amounts to overreaching the process of the Court and creates unnecessary litigation before this Court. The clarification is accordingly quashed, hence, set aside. Henceforth, the law already settled by this Hon'ble Court in the case of M/s Cap 'N' Chops Caterers (supra), shall apply to all such like matters. A circular in this regard is directed to be issued by the Principal Secretary, Excise and Taxation Department, Haryana, so that, no further litigation arises on this aspect. A copy of this order is directed to be sent to the Principal Secretary for necessary compliance.”
Keeping in view the identical issue having been decided in case M/s Sodexo India Services Private Ltd.(supra), holding clarification order dated Sonia Arora 2024.05.07 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP-3587-2021 --3-- 2024:PHHC:055775-DB 22.08.2013 as against settled law, we accordingly set aside the orders dated 18.09.2020 (Annexures P-4, P-7 & P-8).
The petition is allowed.
All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE
(SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE April 24, 2024 sonia arora Whether speaking/reasoned: Speaking Whether reportable: Yes / No Sonia Arora 2024.05.07 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
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.