Rajkamal Builder Infrastructure Private Limited VS Union Of India

The writ application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks relief in the form of a mandamus or any appropriate writ, order, or direction. The primary demand is to challenge the validity of the Form GST DRC 01 issued to the petitioner, alleging that it lacks legal authority and should be nullified.

The writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks several reliefs. Firstly, the petitioner requests the issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other suitable writ, order, or direction, declaring the Form GST DRC 01 issued to them as lacking legal authority and thus eligible for annulment. Secondly, the petitioner urges the issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, asserting that the imposition of interest on delayed payment of tax based on the gross liability is beyond the scope of Section 50 of the CGST Act, and possibly beyond the constitutional provisions of India. These reliefs aim to challenge the legality and constitutionality of certain actions or regulations related to taxation under the GST framework.

The petitioner is seeking relief from the court until their case is resolved. They request that the respondent, likely a governmental or legal authority, refrain from taking any coercive actions against them until a final decision is reached. Specifically, they ask for a stay on the proceedings related to Form GST DRC 01, likely a document associated with goods and services tax. This plea suggests that the petitioner wants protection from any adverse actions or penalties while their case is pending, ensuring fairness and due process.

The petitioner has filed a petition seeking relief from the court. Until the final decision on the petition is made, they request that the respondent refrain from using any coercive measures against them and suspend proceedings related to Form GST DRC 01. They also ask the court to issue any orders or directions it deems appropriate in the interest of justice. Additionally, they seek reimbursement for costs incurred in filing the application. A previous court order from December 5th, 2019, is referenced as relevant to the case.

The petitioner in this case seeks relief from the court regarding certain actions taken by the respondent. They request that pending the admission, hearing, and final disposal of the petition, the respondent be directed by the court:

(i) To refrain from using any coercive measures against the petitioner.

(ii) To halt the proceedings outlined in Form GST DRC 01.

(iii) To issue orders, directions, writs, or any other relief as deemed fit and just by the court, considering the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.

(iv) To award costs associated with the application to be borne by the respondent.

The petitioner refers to a previous order dated December 5th, 2019, wherein the court allowed an amendment to be made by the petitioner. Additionally, the petitioner’s advocate highlighted an issue regarding a show cause notice issued on July 19th, 2019, in Form GST DRC 01 under Rule 142(1) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017. They argued that the notice was issued concerning Section 50 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, but Rule 142 of the Rules does not authorize such notices in relation to Section 50. Hence, they claim that the show cause notice lacks legal authority.

The petitioner in this case seeks various reliefs from the court, primarily aimed at preventing any coercive actions against them until the final resolution of their petition. They request that the respondent be directed to refrain from taking any such measures and to stay the proceedings related to Form GST DRC 01. Additionally, they ask for orders, directions, writs, or other relief as deemed fit by the court in the interest of justice. The petitioner also seeks the award of costs incurred during this application to be paid by the respondent.

The court had previously allowed an amendment to the petitioner’s case and noted the argument that the show cause notice issued to them lacked legal authority. Consequently, the court issued a notice returnable on a specific date and stayed further proceedings based on the impugned notice until that date.

During the proceedings, the court heard arguments from the petitioner’s counsel, Dr. Avinash Poddar, the Standing Counsel representing the Union of India, and the Assistant Government Pleader representing the State respondent.

The passage you provided seems to be an excerpt from a legal document or court proceeding. Let’s break it down:

1. The petitioner is seeking certain directions from the court until the final disposal of their petition. They request the court to: a. Direct the respondent to refrain from using any coercive measures against the petitioner. b. Stay the proceedings related to Form GST DRC 01. c. Grant any relief deemed fit and proper by the court in the interest of justice. d. Award costs related to the application to be paid by the respondent.

2. A previous order dated December 5th, 2019, was issued by a Coordinate Bench of the Court. The order allowed an amendment requested by the petitioner and addressed concerns raised regarding a show cause notice issued under Rule 142(1) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017, related to section 50 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The court issued a notice returnable on December 26th, 2019, and stayed further proceedings regarding the notice in question.

3. The court has heard representations from Dr. Avinash Poddar, counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, standing counsel for the Union of India, and Mr. Trupesh Kathiriya, assistant government pleader representing the state. Two questions are being considered: a. Whether interest under Section 50 of the CGST Act, 2017, should be levied on the net tax liability or the gross tax liability. b. Whether the issuance of Form GST DRC 01 under Section 50 of the CGST Act, 2017, is legal and proper.

In summary, the petitioner seeks certain directions from the court, an amendment has been allowed in a previous order, and the court is currently considering two questions related to the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: