B.K.Singh vs. State Of Haryana

Held

The Court did not decide on the merits of the allegations regarding the fictitious GSTIN. Instead, the petitioner filed an application to withdraw the present petition. The Court allowed this application and ordered the petition to be dismissed as withdrawn. The Court clarified that the Department of Excise and Taxation would be at liberty to continue with proceedings as per law if the petitioner was found to be in violation of any statutory provisions. No specific findings were made on the issues of fictitious GSTIN or the recovered packet. The Court's decision was based solely on the petitioner's request to withdraw the case.

Facts

The petitioner, B.K. Singh, filed a petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging an action by the State of Haryana. On a previous hearing date, the Court was informed by the State counsel that the GSTIN/sales tax number/RC used by the petitioner was fictitious. The petitioner's counsel sought instructions. The Court directed the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer on September 28, 2020, provide documents, and file an affidavit stating the GSTIN of his firm/company. The Court also directed the Deputy Excise and Taxation Officer (DETC) to file an affidavit confirming whether the provided GSTIN was fictitious or belonged to the petitioner's firm. The State counsel also mentioned that a "packet recovered" carried a fictitious sales tax number/RC number, and the Court noted the replacement of the Haryana General Sales Act by the Haryana VAT Act and then GST. On the current date, the petitioner filed an application to withdraw the petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the GSTIN/sales tax number/RC used by the petitioner is fictitious, as alleged by the State of Haryana, and if so, what are the implications for the petitioner's case? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning provisions related to registration and verification under GST law). Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner sought to take instructions regarding the alleged fictitious nature of the GSTIN/sales tax number/RC. No specific arguments were recorded in the judgment regarding the petitioner's defense on the merits of the allegations. Revenue/State's contentions: The State of Haryana contended that the GSTIN/sales tax number/RC used by the petitioner was fictitious. They also noted that a "packet recovered" carried a fictitious sales tax number/RC number. The State counsel was expected to provide an affidavit from the DETC to confirm the status of the GSTIN.