Vimal Yashwantgiri Goswami VS State Of Gujarat

The main relief sought in the writ application is a Writ of Mandamus, Writ of Prohibition, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction. This relief is requested to direct the respondents not to take any actions against the petitioner, who is the proprietor of Heugo Metal, exercising powers under Section 69 read with Section 132 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner seeks this direction specifically to prevent actions from being taken without following the due procedure of law for the assessment and adjudication of alleged GST evasion. This due procedure is outlined under Section 61, Section 73, and Section 74 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, which includes adhering to the provisions of Chapter XII of both the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, and the Gujarat Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.

The main relief sought in the writ application is for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, Writ of Prohibition, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction. This is intended to direct the respondents to refrain from taking any actions against the petitioner, who is the proprietor of Heugo Metal, under Section 69 read with Section 132 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner seeks that such actions should not proceed without following the due procedure of law for the assessment and adjudication of alleged GST evasion, as outlined under Section 61, Section 73, and Section 74 of the aforementioned Act.

Furthermore, the petitioner insists that any such actions must adhere strictly to the provisions laid down in Chapter XII of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, and the Gujarat Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, along with Chapter VIII of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017, and the Gujarat Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017. Specifically, the petition concerns File No. ACST/UNIT-9/2019-20/B registered with State Tax (2), Unit-9, Ahmedabad.

In support of their arguments, Mr. Chetan K. Pandya, representing the writ applicant, has cited precedent cases, including the Delhi High Court’s decision in MAKEMYTRIP (INDIA) PVT. LTD. vs. UNION OF INDIA (2016) and the Madras High Court’s decision in M/s. Jayachandran Alloys (P) Ltd. vs. The Superintendent of GST and Central Excise and Others (Writ Petition No. 5501 of 2019, decided on April 4, 2019). These cases are pivotal in shaping the legal argumentation regarding procedural fairness and due process in GST-related matters.

The main relief sought in the writ application is a Writ of Mandamus or Prohibition, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction. This is intended to direct the respondents (authorities) not to take any actions against the petitioner, who is the proprietor of Heugo Metal, under Section 69 read with Section 132 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The applicant insists that such actions should only proceed after following due procedure as outlined in Section 61, Section 73, and Section 74 of the Act, along with Chapter XII of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, and corresponding rules under both Central and Gujarat Goods and Service Tax Acts.

Additionally, the counsel for the applicant, Mr. Chetan K. Pandya, draws heavily on legal precedents, particularly citing the Delhi High Court’s decision in MAKEMYTRIP (INDIA) PVT. LTD. vs. UNION OF INDIA (2016), affirmed by the Supreme Court, which emphasizes that authorities must adhere strictly to procedural safeguards, especially before resorting to drastic measures like arrest under taxation laws. This principle underscores the requirement for authorities to exercise powers judiciously and in accordance with the procedural safeguards outlined in relevant statutes.

The main relief sought in the writ application is for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, Writ of Prohibition, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction. This is to direct the respondents not to take any actions against the petitioner, who is the proprietor of Heugo Metal. The actions referred to involve exercising powers under Section 69 read with Section 132, without following the due procedure of law for assessment and adjudication of alleged GST evasion. Specifically, the petitioner requests adherence to the provisions outlined in Chapter XII of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, Gujarat Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, Chapter VIII of Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017, and Gujarat Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017, concerning File No. ACST/UNIT-9/2019-20/B registered with State Tax (2), Unit-9, Ahmedabad.

Mr. Chetan K. Pandya, counsel for the applicant, heavily relies on legal precedents such as the Delhi High Court’s decision in MAKEMYTRIP (INDIA) PVT. LTD. vs. UNION OF INDIA (2016) and the Madras High Court’s decision in M/s. Jayachandran Alloys (P) Ltd. vs. The Superintendent of GST and Central Excise. These cases underscore the procedural requirements and limitations on the power to arrest or prosecute under tax laws, emphasizing that such powers must be exercised cautiously and only after due process, including a determination of habitual offending. The Delhi High Court’s decision, affirmed by the Supreme Court, highlights the necessity for tax authorities to follow prescribed procedures and to base their actions on sound evidence and deliberation, rather than presumption or bypassing statutory safeguards.

The writ applicant in the present case seeks relief primarily through a Writ of Mandamus or Prohibition, or any appropriate writ, order, or direction. This relief aims to restrain the respondents from taking any action against the petitioner, who is the proprietor of Heugo Metal. The actions in question involve exercising powers under Section 69, read with Section 132, of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, without adhering to the due procedures of law for assessing and adjudicating alleged GST evasion.

The applicant’s counsel, Mr. Chetan K. Pandya, relies heavily on legal precedents, specifically citing the Delhi High Court’s decision in MAKEMYTRIP (INDIA) PVT. LTD. vs. UNION OF INDIA and the Madras High Court’s ruling in M/s. Jayachandran Alloys (P) Ltd. vs. The Superintendent of GST and Central Excise. These decisions emphasize that procedures such as those outlined in Chapter XII of the CGST Act, 2017, and related rules must be followed before any punitive actions, including arrest or prosecution, can be taken under Section 69.

The Delhi High Court decision, affirmed by the Supreme Court, underscores that the power of arrest under Section 69 should be exercised cautiously and only after fulfilling the procedural safeguards set out in the law. It criticizes the bypassing of these procedures by authorities like the DGCEI, highlighting the need for a determination of deliberate tax evasion through proper adjudication before resorting to severe measures.

In essence, the applicant argues that the powers under Section 69 should not be wielded arbitrarily but should follow a meticulous process of assessment and adjudication as prescribed by the GST laws and rules. The emphasis is on ensuring that any punitive actions are based on a well-founded determination of liability rather than presumption or procedural oversight. This approach seeks to protect against unwarranted enforcement actions that could adversely affect the rights and interests of the petitioner.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: