Enaltec Labs Private Limited Through Its Authorised Representative Mr. Ashok Chaplot vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable and dismissed it. The primary ground for dismissal was the availability of statutory remedies. The Court noted that the petitioner had not disclosed the actual date of the erroneous refund, and Section 73(10) provides a separate three-year limitation period from the date of erroneous refund. The Court found that the Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch had initiated an investigation for the relevant periods, and after scrutinizing documents, the show-cause notice was issued. Therefore, it could not be concluded that the notice was time-barred. The Court did not find any reason to interfere with the impugned show-cause notice. No specific issue regarding the interpretation of Section 73(10) or the applicability of the extended limitation period was definitively decided on merits, as the petition was dismissed on the ground of maintainability.

Facts

The petitioner, Enaltec Labs Private Limited, challenged a show-cause notice dated 20.08.2024 issued by respondent No. 2 under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017. The notice demanded INR 3,13,68,322/- plus interest and penalty for alleged violation of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, 2017, concerning refunds of integrated taxes on export of goods for FY 2018-19 to 2020-21. The petitioner argued the notice was time-barred. The revenue contended that the petition was not maintainable as statutory remedies were bypassed. The petitioner had availed advance authorisation licenses for import duty exemptions on inputs for export goods. The authorities alleged double benefit was claimed by availing both import duty exemption and IGST refund on exports. The petitioner had previously refunded an amount of Rs. 3,13,68,323/- through DRC-03 challans.

Key Issues

1. Whether the show-cause notice dated 20.08.2024, issued under Section 73(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, for the tax periods FY 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2020-21, is barred by limitation prescribed under Section 73(10) of the CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the limitation period under Section 73(10) of the CGST Act had expired for the tax periods in question, rendering the show-cause notice without jurisdiction. They also contended that a notification extending the limitation period did not permit the issuance of the notice by the specified extended date and that a Gujarat High Court judgment (Cosmo Films Limited vs. Union of India) was not considered. Revenue's arguments: The revenue argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had bypassed the statutory remedies available, citing Apex Court and High Court judgments (Malladi Drugs and Pharma Ltd. vs. Union of India and Jiji Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India). They submitted that the petitioner could raise all grounds before the proper officer and subsequently avail the appellate remedy.