M/S Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan Sugars Private Limited vs. Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise
Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan Sugars Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated 08.12.2010 issued by the second respondent (Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax). The show cause notice proposed to demand CENVAT credit availed on capital goods used in a co-generation plant, along with interest and penalty. The petitioner argued that a similar issue was decided in favour of M/s. EID Parry (India) Limited by the Commissioner of GST and Central Excise in Original Order No. 08/COMMR/CE/2023 dated 31.03.2023, where CENVAT credit for machineries used in a Captive Power Plant was allowed. The respondents submitted that the representation could be made directly to the concerned officer as it was a show cause notice.
Held
The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioner's official to appear before the Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (first respondent) on 12.07.2023. The Court held that the first respondent should follow the order dated 31.03.2023 passed in Original No. 08/COMMR/CE/2023, which allowed CENVAT credit in respect of machineries used in a captive power plant. The Commissioner was directed to pass the order within two weeks from the date of appearance. The principle derived is that if a similar issue has been decided in favour of a taxpayer by a competent authority, the same principle should be applied to subsequent cases involving identical facts and issues, especially at the show cause notice stage, to avoid unnecessary litigation and ensure consistency in tax administration.
Key Issues
1. Whether the CENVAT credit availed on capital goods used in a co-generation plant is admissible to the petitioner, considering the decision in M/s. EID Parry (India) Limited's case? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the same yardstick applied in the case of M/s. EID Parry (India) Limited should be applied to their case, as the issue of CENVAT credit for machineries used in a captive power plant was allowed in that precedent. Revenue's contention: The respondents submitted that since the matter was at the show cause notice stage, the petitioner's representation could be made directly before the concerned officer.
Sections Cited
Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 28.06.2023 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA and W.M.P(MD) Nos.22514 and 22516 of 2022 M/s.Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan Sugars Private Limited, Represented by its Executive Director, Mr.N.Chinnappan, Udumbian Village, Veppanthattai Taluk, Perambalur-621212. ... Petitioner Vs. 1.Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, No.1, Williams Road, Cantonment, Tiruchirappalli-620001. 2.Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, No.1, William Road, Cantonment, Tiruchirappalli-620001. ... Respondents Prayer :- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records on the file of the second respondent in the impugned show cause notice in _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.No.V/Ch.17/15/62/2010-Cx.Adj. dated 08.12.2010 and quash the same as illegal and not in accordance with law.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sivaraman For Respondents : Mr.S.Nandakumar Senior Panel Counsel Assisted by Mrs.S.Ragaventre Junior Standing Counsel
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 Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.