Alp Nishikawa Company PVT.LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Others
Held
The High Court disposed of the writ petition without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. It granted liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed and comprehensive representation before the Nodal Officer within five days, raising all pleas made in the writ petition. The court directed that if such a representation is filed, it shall be forwarded to the IT Redressal Committee within fifteen days after verification by GSTN. The Committee is then to decide the representation in terms of clause 5.4 of Circular No. 39/13/2018-GST dated 03.04.2018, by passing a speaking order and affording a hearing to the petitioner within four weeks of receiving the representation. The petitioner is entitled to lead evidence to substantiate their claim. No specific issue was decided on merits, and the operative direction was to facilitate a resolution through the stipulated redressal mechanism.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s ALP Nishikawa Company Pvt. Ltd., a private limited company engaged in research and development and production of automotive sector products, filed a writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The petition sought directions to the respondents to allow CENVAT credit amounting to ₹27,68,988/- under Rule 10 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The specific authority against whom the petition was filed and the procedural history prior to the High Court's intervention are not detailed in the provided text, beyond the filing of the writ petition itself.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to CENVAT credit of ₹27,68,988/- under Rule 10 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued for directions to the respondents to allow the claimed CENVAT credit. The specific legal grounds or precedents relied upon by the petitioner are not detailed in the judgment. Respondents' Contention: The respondents, represented by counsel, appeared before the court. Their specific arguments or contentions are not recorded in the judgment. The court's disposal was made without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case.
Sections Cited
Rule 10, CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, Circular No.39/13/2018-GST
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-10194-2018 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 21.05.2018 M/s ALP Nishikawa Company Pvt. Ltd. --Petitioner Versus Union of India & others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA Present:- Mr. Amar Pratap Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sourabh Goel, Advocate for respondents. *** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.ACJ (Oral)
Petitioner-firms is registered as a private limited company and is primarily engaged in carrying out research and development, designing and producing EPDM and Rubber polymer based products for automative sector. Instant petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for directions to the respondents to allow the CENVAT credit of `27,68,988/- under Rule 10 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusing the present petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we dispose of the present petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed and comprehensive representation raising all the pleas as raised in the present writ pe
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.