M/S Bobby Creation Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner Central GST Gurugram And Ors
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Bobby Creation Private Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging several notices dated 26.11.2020, 27.11.2019, 9.1.2020, and 28.1.2021, issued by Respondent No. 1, the Deputy Commissioner, Central GST Gurugram. The petitioner contended that the information demanded in these notices had already been provided on multiple occasions. At the hearing, the petitioner's counsel stated that they would be satisfied if a direction was issued to Respondent No. 2, the Commissioner, GST Audit, Gurugram, to expeditiously consider and decide a representation dated 6.11.2020 filed by the petitioner.
Held
The Court, without delving into the merits of the case, disposed of the writ petition. It directed Respondent No. 2, the Commissioner, GST Audit, Gurugram, to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 6.11.2020 in accordance with the law within eight weeks of receiving a certified copy of the judgment. If, upon consideration, the competent authority found the petitioner's claimed benefit admissible, consequential relief was to be granted within a further eight weeks. Conversely, if the relief was deemed inadmissible or not made out, a speaking order was to be passed. The Court did not decide the validity of the notices themselves.
Key Issues
1. Whether the notices issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Central GST Gurugram, demanding details already provided by the petitioner are valid? (Question of law and fact, concerning the procedural fairness and compliance with GST provisions regarding information requests). The petitioner argued that the notices were unjustified as the requested details had already been furnished. The revenue did not present arguments on this specific issue as the matter was disposed of on the petitioner's request for a direction. 2. Whether the Commissioner, GST Audit, Gurugram, should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 6.11.2020 expeditiously? (Question of procedural relief). The petitioner sought a direction for timely consideration of their representation. The revenue did not contest this request.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
CWP-3490-2021 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-3490-2021 Date of decision: 25.2.2021 M/s Bobby Creation Private Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner, Central GST Gururam and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK PURI Present: Mr.Shiv Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Sunish Bindlish, Senior Standing Counsel, CBIC for the respondents **** JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.
The matter has been taken up through video-conferencing in the light of the pandemic Covid-19 situation and as per instructions.
This writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the impugned Notices dated 26.11.2020, 27.11.2019, 9.1.2020 and 28.1.2021 (Annexures P8 to P11 respectively) issued by respondent No.1 as the details demanded under the said notices have already been provided by the petitioner on various occasions.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that at this stage, he would be satisfied, if a direction is issued to respondent No.2 – Commissioner, GST Audit, Gurugram to consider and decide the representation dated 6.11.2020 (Annexure P-13 ) expeditiously.
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.