Jindal Drugs Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIA And Ors

Facts

The petitioner, Jindal Drugs Private Limited, filed an application for amendment of its writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The writ petition was yet to be admitted. Through the amendment, the petitioner sought to challenge a Circular dated October 9, 2018, as ultra vires Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with Rule 96 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. Additionally, the petitioner sought to set aside orders in appeal dated July 5, 2021, and July 6, 2021, and requested directions to amend shipping bills filed under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. The respondents, Union of India and others, did not seriously oppose the amendment but requested time to file a reply.

Held

The Court allowed the application for amendment of the writ petition. It was held that the proposed amendments would not alter the original character of the writ petition. The Court did not decide on the merits of the issues raised by the petitioner, as the judgment pertains to an interim application for amendment. The Court directed the petitioner to file the amended writ petition within seven days, dispensing with re-verification. The respondents were granted four weeks from the receipt of the amended petition to file their reply affidavit, and the petitioner was given one week thereafter to file a rejoinder. The writ petition was listed for hearing on December 14, 2021.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Circular dated October 9, 2018, is ultra vires the provisions of Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with Rule 96 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017? The petitioner argued that the Circular is beyond the scope of the aforementioned provisions. The respondents' contentions were not recorded as they did not seriously oppose the amendment sought to raise this issue. 2. Whether the orders in appeal dated July 5, 2021, and July 6, 2021, are liable to be set aside? The petitioner sought to challenge these orders. The respondents' arguments on this issue were not recorded. 3. Whether the respondents should be directed to amend the shipping bills filed by the petitioner under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962? The petitioner sought this direction. The respondents' stance on this issue was not recorded.