Nav Durga Fuel Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, Nav Durga Fuel Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Chhattisgarh High Court challenging various aspects of GST recovery and interest demands. The petitioner sought to declare Rule 88B(i) of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017, as ultra-vires and to have it applied prospectively. They also challenged Clause 7 of Notification No. 14/2022-CT dated 5.7.2022, and letters dated 24.11.2021, 25.3.2022, and 2.12.2022 proposing recovery proceedings under Section 79. The petitioner argued that the demand of interest was confirmed without available relaxations and that recovery proceedings under Section 79 were initiated without appropriate proceedings under Section 73. The petitioner sought directions for the respondent to follow the appropriate legal process for demand before recovery.

Held

The petitioner sought several reliefs, including declaring Rule 88B(i) ultra-vires and having prospective effect, quashing Clause 7 of Notification No. 14/2022-CT dated 5.7.2022, and setting aside recovery proceedings initiated under Section 79 without proper proceedings under Section 73. The petitioner also challenged the demand of interest confirmed without available relaxations. However, at the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the present petition be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse for further action taken by the respondents, if so advised. The Court, accordingly, dismissed the petition as withdrawn with the liberty granted to the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether Rule 88B(i) of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017, is ultra-vires the provisions of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that Rule 88B(i) should be declared ultra-vires and that it should only have prospective effect, not retrospective applicability. 2. Whether Clause 7 of Notification No. 14/2022-CT dated 5.7.2022 is liable to be quashed? The petitioner sought to quash this notification. 3. Whether the letters dated 24.11.2021, 25.3.2022, and 2.12.2022 proposing recovery proceedings under Section 79 are illegal and inoperative? The petitioner contended that these recovery proceedings were illegal and void ab initio. 4. Whether the demand of interest confirmed without granting available relaxations is illegal? The petitioner argued that the demand for interest was confirmed illegally. 5. Whether proceedings for demand of interest commenced under Section 79 without appropriate proceedings under Section 73 are illegal and void ab initio? The petitioner asserted that such proceedings were illegal. The respondents' arguments are not recorded in the judgment.