Anil Kumar Malik vs. Pr. Commissioner, Central GST Commissionerate, Rohtak

Facts

The petitioner, Anil Kumar Malik, operating as M/s Anil Kumar Contractor, provided road and drainage construction services to Government and Local Authorities during financial years 2016-17 and 2017-18 (up to June 2017). He contended that these services were exempt under notification No. 25/2012 dated 20.06.2012. The petitioner received a notice dated 27.09.2022 from a local officer, requiring his appearance on 11.10.2022. The petitioner failed to appear on the scheduled date and subsequently requested an adjournment. The present writ petition seeks to set aside and remand back an order dated 30.11.2022, passed by the respondent, Pr. Commissioner, Central GST Commissionerate, Rohtak.

Held

The Court issued notice of motion and accepted appearance on behalf of the respondent. The petitioner's primary contention is that the services provided were exempt under notification No. 25/2012 dated 20.06.2012. The petitioner also sought to set aside and remand the order dated 30.11.2022. The Court has not yet delivered a final decision on the merits of the case. The operative part of the judgment, as presented, is limited to issuing notice and accepting appearance. The specific findings on the exemption claim or the validity of the order dated 30.11.2022 are not recorded in this excerpt. The Court has not expressly left any issues undecided, but the core issues remain to be adjudicated.

Key Issues

1. Whether the services provided by the petitioner, namely road and drainage construction to Government and Local Authorities, are exempt from GST under notification No. 25/2012 dated 20.06.2012, as contended by the petitioner? The petitioner argued that all services rendered were covered by the aforementioned notification, which provides exemptions for certain services provided to Government and Local Authorities. The respondent's stance on this exemption is not explicitly recorded in the provided text. 2. Whether the order dated 30.11.2022, passed by the respondent, is liable to be set aside and remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration? The petitioner seeks this relief, implying procedural or substantive flaws in the impugned order, particularly in light of his inability to appear on the scheduled date and his subsequent request for adjournment.