Case Title | Radico Khaitan Limited vs Deputy Commissioner Commercial Tax |
Court | Allahabad High Court |
Honorable Judges | Justice Bala Krishna Narayana Justice Shamim Ahmed |
Citation | 2020 (01) GSTPanacea 37 HC Allahabad WRIT TAX No. – 1329 of 2019 |
Judgment Date | 10-January-2020 |
The writ petition in question has been brought forth by the petitioner, with representation made by Sri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel. On the other side, representing respondent numbers 1 to 4, Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General, is assisted by Sri Shashank Shekhar Singh. Further, Sri Shashi Prakash Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, appears for respondent numbers 5 and 6.
The petition, at its core, seeks several reliefs. Firstly, it requests the issuance of a writ, order, or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash notices dated 14.11.2019, 15.11.2019, and 16.11.2019 issued by respondent number 1 under Section 73(1) of the UPGST/CGST Act for the period spanning from July 2017 to July 2019. Additionally, it seeks a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing respondent number 1 to maintain the status quo as decided by the respondent number 5, the GST Goods and Service Tax Council, in its meetings dated 05.08.2017 and 22.12.2018, as evidenced by Annexure-15 and 16 to the writ petition. Lastly, the petitioner seeks a writ, order, or direction in the nature of prohibition restraining respondent number 1 from proceeding with the notices issued under Section 73(1) of the UPGST/CGST Act, dated 14.11.2019, 15.11.2019, and 16.11.2019, until a decision is taken by the Goods and Service Tax Council on this point.
The petitioner’s plea appears to challenge the legality and propriety of the aforementioned notices issued by respondent number 1, asserting that they are in contravention of the provisions of the UPGST/CGST Act and the decisions of the GST Council. The crux of the matter seems to revolve around maintaining the status quo as per the decisions of the GST Council and restraining further proceedings by respondent number 1 until the matter is resolved at that level.
In essence, the writ petition seeks judicial intervention to ensure compliance with statutory provisions and decisions taken by the GST Council, thereby safeguarding the petitioner’s interests against alleged improper actions by respondent number 1.
In the case at hand, the petitioner contends that no Goods and Services Tax (GST) should be levied on the sale of un-denatured Extra Neutral Alcohol (ENA) to liquor manufacturers. The petitioner received notices from the respondent no. 1 under Section 61 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (UPGST Act), questioning the imposition of GST and penalty on the sale of un-denatured ENA. Despite the petitioner’s submission explaining the non-applicability of GST on such transactions and citing the attention of the Goods and Service Tax Council, which decided to maintain the status quo on the matter, the respondent no. 1 proceeded to issue a show cause notice under Section 73 of the UPGST Act, demanding GST, interest, and penalty.
Upon review of the arguments presented by the petitioner’s counsel and examining the evidence, the court finds merit in the petitioner’s contentions. Consequently, the court decides to await responses from the respondents. It directs the respondents’ counsel to file counter affidavits within four weeks and allows the petitioner to submit a rejoinder affidavit within two weeks thereafter. The case is scheduled for further hearing on 28th February 2020 before the appropriate bench.
Additionally, the court orders a stay on further proceedings initiated by the respondent no. 1 based on the notices issued under Section 73(1) of the UPGST/CGST Act and Rule 142(1) until the next listing date. It explicitly states that the case should not be considered as tied up or part-heard to the current bench. Furthermore, the court awards the costs of the writ petition to the petitioner.
Download Pdf:
For Reference Visit
Allahabad High Court
Read Another Case Law:
GST Case Law