M/S Lakhmichand Ispat vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Lakhmichand Ispat, through its partner Mr. Nitish Agrawal, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur. The petition challenged the provisions of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, deeming them arbitrary, without jurisdiction, unconstitutional, and against the principles of natural justice, as well as ultra-vire to Articles 14, 300A, and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the petitioner sought to quash an order issued vide Form APL-04 dated 07.11.2023, which confirmed a demand of tax under Section 73(9) and imposed interest under Section 50 of the CGST Act, 2017. The order under challenge was passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Jurisdiction - Durg 2.

Held

The Court did not decide the substantive issues raised by the petitioner regarding the constitutionality of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, or the validity of the impugned order. After hearing arguments for some time, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the present petition with liberty to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of their grievances. The respondents had no objection to this request. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn, granting the petitioner the liberty to pursue their remedies elsewhere. No specific findings were made on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017 is arbitrary, without jurisdiction, unconstitutional, against the principles of natural justice, and ultra-vire to Articles 14, 300A, and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, is unconstitutional and violates fundamental rights. They sought to quash the demand of tax and interest confirmed by the impugned order. Respondents' Contention: The State and the Union of India, represented by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and the Department of Revenue respectively, were respondents. They had no objection to the petitioner's request to withdraw the petition.