Maa Laxmi Associates VS Union Of India

The petition in question aims to secure a directive from the respondent no. 2, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBITC), to respond to a representation submitted by the petitioner on November 17, 2020. Additionally, a comparable directive is sought from the respondent no. 6, the Sales Tax Officer, Class II/AVATO, Ward 71, Zone 6, Delhi, to address and provide a speaking order on the petitioner’s representation dated January 15, 2021, within a reasonable timeframe. Essentially, the petitioner is petitioning the court to compel these respondents to take action on their submissions and issue formal decisions or responses in a timely manner.

The petitioner’s counsel was questioned about whether there exists a legal obligation for the respondent, CBITC, to respond to all representations or communications directed towards it. This inquiry delves into the legal framework governing the responsibilities of CBITC in acknowledging and addressing communications received from external sources, particularly those from the petitioner.

In the communication dated November 17, 2020, the petitioner has sought clarification regarding Section 168 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). This request for clarification pertains to concerns arising from interception, detention, seizure, and confiscation proceedings conducted by the Karnataka authorities under Sections 129 and 130 of the CGST Act. Essentially, the petitioner is seeking clarity on the interpretation and application of Section 168 in relation to the actions taken by the Karnataka authorities in enforcing Sections 129 and 130 of the CGST Act.

The communication dated November 17, 2020, was a request for legal advice addressed to CBITC. However, it has been asserted that there exists no legal obligation binding CBITC to provide such advice. The counsel representing the petitioner hasn’t presented any legal precedent or authority supporting the contention that CBITC is mandated to offer guidance on matters concerning the interception, detention, and subsequent procedures related to goods in transit, including the verification of relevant documents. Thus, the absence of a legal imperative compels CBITC’s non-obligation in furnishing the requested legal opinion.

The petitioner, when facing uncertainty regarding legal matters, should typically seek clarification and guidance from their legal advisors or advocates. However, instead of consulting legal professionals, the petitioner has turned to respondent No. 2, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBITC), to provide a legal opinion. This action suggests that the petitioner is seeking direct legal guidance from a government authority rather than following the conventional route of consulting legal experts.

Following the aforementioned discussion, the counsel representing the petitioner further argues that respondent no. 6 (presumably another party involved in the case) has purportedly revoked the petitioner’s registration. This assertion indicates a subsequent development in the case, potentially implying a significant impact on the petitioner’s legal standing or rights. It suggests a potential escalation or alteration in the circumstances surrounding the case, prompting further examination and consideration by the concerned parties and the court.

In response to the situation at hand, we have consulted with the counsel representing the petitioner to determine whether challenging the perceived issue directly is a more appropriate course of action rather than making representations against it. This inquiry aims to ascertain whether pursuing a legal challenge to address the matter in question is a more effective approach compared to simply making representations or complaints regarding it.

While the counsel representing the petitioner has not responded to the previous assertion, the counsel representing respondent no. 6 has provided clarification. According to the counsel for respondent no. 6, Section 30 of the CGST Act is relevant to the matter at hand. This section likely pertains to the cancellation of registration under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST Act). The mention of this section indicates that there may be statutory provisions empowering respondent no. 6 to cancel the petitioner’s registration, potentially shedding light on the legal basis for the action taken. This development underscores the need for legal interpretation and examination of the provisions cited to determine their applicability and implications in the context of the case.

The petitioner has informed the court that they are permitted to file an application for the revocation of the cancellation of registration. Additionally, they assert that the respondent no. 6 is entrusted with the authority to make a decision regarding this matter. This statement indicates that the petitioner has the legal right to submit an application seeking the reversal of the cancellation of their registration, and the decision on this application rests within the jurisdiction of respondent no. 6.

The petitioner has brought to the attention of the court an application dated November 3, 2020, and emphasized the importance of processing it within a specified timeframe. This indicates the petitioner’s urgency in having their application addressed promptly and in accordance with a predetermined schedule. They likely seek timely action on their request, underscoring the significance of adhering to a specific timeline for the resolution of their matter.

As a result of the discussions and arguments presented, the petition has been resolved, with a directive issued. The directive specifies that the respondent no. 6, identified as the Sales Tax Officer, Class II/AVATO, Ward 71: Zone 6, Delhi, is tasked with making a decision. This decision-making responsibility likely pertains to the matter under dispute or contention, potentially including the cancellation of the petitioner’s registration. By assigning this decision-making authority to respondent no. 6, the court or relevant authority aims to address and resolve the issues raised within the petition, ensuring that appropriate action is taken in accordance with the relevant legal provisions and considerations.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: