A.P. Refinery (P.) Ltd. VS State of Uttarakhand

The court is considering two writ petitions, M/S No.1014 of 2021 being the primary case, both stemming from similar circumstances, presenting identical legal quandaries, and pursuing analogous remedies. M/s A.P. Refinery Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner in M/S No.1014 of 2021, has petitioned the court for several reliefs.

Firstly, the petitioner contests the constitutional validity of Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act/State Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST/SGST Act), in conjunction with Rule 140 of the CGST/SGST Rules.

Secondly, the petitioner seeks a declaration asserting that Section 129 of the CGST Act does not mandate the re-depositing of tax if it has already been paid once. Both petitions are being addressed together to provide a unified judgment.

The case at hand involves two writ petitions, both stemming from similar circumstances, posing identical legal questions, and seeking comparable remedies. Consequently, they are being addressed together through this shared judgment, with Writ Petition (M/S) No.1014 of 2021 serving as the leading case.

The petitioner, M/s A.P. Refinery Pvt. Ltd., presents several pleas before the court. Firstly, it challenges the constitutional validity of Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act/State Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST/SGST Act), in conjunction with Rule 140 of the CGST/SGST Rules. Secondly, it requests a declaration affirming that Section 129 of the CGST Act doesn’t require the re-payment of tax once it’s already settled. Thirdly, it contests a show-cause notice dated 01.04.2021, issued by the respondent-department under Section 129(3) of the CGST/SGST Act.

Additionally, the petitioner challenges the legality of various orders, including those issued by respondent no. 3 under Section 129(3) of the CGST/SGST Act, as well as an order from the same respondent dated 01.04.2021, which detained trucks belonging to the petitioner. Moreover, it disputes rectification/withdrawal orders dated 23.04.2021, issued by respondent no. 3 under Rule 142(7) of the CGST/SGST Rules, and an order dated 17.04.2021, issued by the same respondent under Section 130 of the CGST/SGST Act. Further contention is raised against multiple orders, all dated 23.04.2021, issued in Forms GST DRC-07 under Section 130 of the CGST/SGST Act by respondent No.3.

In essence, M/s A.P. Refinery Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner, operates in the… [remaining summary continues with details of the case’s background, arguments presented, and any significant legal precedents or principles involved.]

The case at hand involves M/s A.P. Refinery Pvt. Ltd. challenging various aspects of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act/State Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST/SGST Act) and related rules. They seek relief from the constitutional validity of Section 129 of the CGST/SGST Act along with Rule 140, contesting that it does not require the re-deposit of tax once it’s already paid. Additionally, they contest a show-cause notice issued under Section 129(3) of the CGST/SGST Act, as well as the legality of orders passed under the same section detaining trucks owned by the petitioner and subsequent rectification/withdrawal orders. Further, they challenge an order issued under Section 130 of the CGST/SGST Act and multiple orders passed by the respondent under the same section, all dated 23.04.2021, issued in Forms GST DRC-07.

The petitioner, M/s A.P. Refinery Pvt. Ltd., engaged in transporting Rice Bran Oil to District Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand, encountered delays due to the festival of Holi. Trucks carrying the consignment were delayed in Ambala on 28.03.2021 to avoid potential damage to the goods amidst Holi celebrations. They resumed their journey on 30.03.2021 but were intercepted by officers of the Assistant Commissioner (GST-State) of Udham Singh Nagar district on 31.03.2021. The drivers provided necessary documentation including e-Invoices, e-Way bills, bilty, registration certificates, and driver’s licenses.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:                                      

GST Case law: