Case Title | Lupin Limited vs Union of India. |
Court | Gujarat High Court |
Honorable Judges | Justice N.V. Anjaria & Justice Bhargav D. Karia |
Citation | 2022 (6) GSTPanacea 114 HC Gujarat C/SCA/10248/2021 |
Judgement Date | 29-June-2022 |
Council for Petitioner | Aditya P Parikh Bharat Raichandani |
Council for Respondent | Krutik Parikh Priyank Lodha |
Section | |
In Favour of | Union of India |
The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice N.V.Anjaria & Justice Bhargav D.Kariahas held that the petitioner has misconstrued the simple communication letter as recovery notice and filed the present petition taking such an insignificant ground.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioner has prayed to call for the records pertaining to the recovery notice dated 28.05.2021 stated to have been issued by respondent No.3- the Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Vadodara.
It is a further prayer made wanting this Court to go into the validity and legality of the said recovery notice and to hold that long term lease of 99 years is nothing but sale of land and building in terms of Entry 5 of Schedule III to Section 7 of the CGST Act,2017 and that it would not attract the levy of GST. It is further prayed to require the respondent authorities not to effect any recovery pursuant to the said notice
Stating the bare minimum facts, the petitioner purchased the Plot Nos. 2201 and 2202 in the Ankleshwar Industrial Area of Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation Deed of Assignment-cum Slup Deed dated 28.10.2010 was executed. Subsequently, the petitioner sold of the said property by sale deed dated 08.06.2018 transferring rights thereunder to one Siddharth Interchem Private Limited.
It was stated that the said Siddharth Interchem Private Limited would be using the plot for manufacturing operations. It further appears that the petitioner received impugned “recovery notice” as is styled by the petitioner in relation to the said transaction
On bare reading of the said communication dated 28.05.2021, described by the petitioner as “recovery notice” was found that it is a mere communication from respondent No.3
COURT HELD
Considering the facts as recorded, held that the petitioner has misconstrued the simple communication letter as recovery notice and filed the present petition taking such an insignificant ground.
Nothing further survives in the petition. There exists no cause of action whatsoever in the present set of facts.
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
The petition is dismissed. It goes without saying that there was no occasion for this Court to go into the merits of the case inasmuch as what was challenged is recovery notice which was actually a mere communication as stated by the respondent No.3 himself.
Download PDF:
For Reference Visit: