M/S Indus Tower LTD Through Its Authorised Signatory Shri Sanyam Arora vs. The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Secretary Department Of State Tax

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Indus Tower Limited, filed two writ petitions before the Jharkhand High Court. The first petition (W.P.(T) No.958 of 2024) challenged a show cause notice. The respondents stated that this notice had culminated into a final order, which was the subject of the second petition (W.P.(T) No. 2874 of 2024). Consequently, the first petition was disposed of as infructuous. The second petition challenged a notification issued under the Goods and Services Tax regime. The petitioner argued that the notification was issued in contravention of Section 168A of the CGST Act and the corresponding Jharkhand GST Act. The respondents contended that similar notifications had been upheld by other High Courts.

Held

The Court first addressed W.P.(T) No. 958 of 2024, wherein the petitioner challenged a show cause notice. The Court noted that a writ petition against a show cause notice is generally not maintainable. Furthermore, the respondents pointed out that the notice had already culminated into a final order, which was being challenged in the second writ petition. Therefore, the Court held that the first writ petition had become infructuous and disposed of it accordingly. For W.P.(T) No. 2874 of 2024, the Court acknowledged the arguments from both sides regarding the validity of the impugned notification and the reliance on various High Court and Supreme Court judgments. However, the Court did not render a final decision on the merits of this petition. Instead, it directed that all cited judgments be kept on record and adjourned the case for one week, indicating that further arguments or consideration were pending.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition challenging a show cause notice is maintainable? (Question of law) 2. Whether the impugned notification was issued in contravention of Section 168A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the notification was issued in contravention of Section 168A of the CGST Act and the Jharkhand GST Act. They relied on judgments from the Calcutta High Court (Celica Motorbike Private Limited and Anr. vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Revenue, Park Street Charge, WBGST & Ors.; Hahnemann’s Jac Olivol Group of Products Private Limited & Ors. vs. The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Bureau of Investigation, South Bengal HQ & Ors.) and the Allahabad High Court (M/s Graziano Trasmissioni vs. Goods and Services Tax and 5 Others). Respondents' arguments: The respondents contended that the notification had been considered valid by the Kerala High Court (Faizal Traders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner, Central Tax and Central Excise, Palakkad and Anr.) and the Allahabad High Court (M/s Graziano Trasmissioni vs. Goods and Services Tax and 5 Others). They also relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. vs. Union of India and Anr.