Shashikant Singh VS Union Of India

The petitioner seeks relief from various orders and actions taken by the tax authorities regarding tax demands and procedural irregularities in the context of Goods and Services Tax (GST).

a. The petitioner requests the issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the Summary of Order (demand order issued in FORM GST DRC 07) dated 21.03.2020, which demands tax, interest, and penalty for the tax periods of September 2018, December 2018, and March 2018.

b. Another prayer is for the issuance of a writ, including a writ of certiorari, to nullify the order dated 19.03.2020, which imposed a tax demand of Rs. 26,81,102.00, interest of Rs. 1,97,061, and penalty of Rs. 2,68,110, totaling Rs. 31,46,273 for CGST and SGST for the same tax periods.

c. The petitioner also seeks a writ or writs, including a writ of mandamus, to direct the respondents to produce FORM DRC 01 and DRC 01A, which should have been electronically served to the petitioner through the GST Portal but were not received.

d. Additionally, the petitioner requests a writ or writs, including a writ of certiorari, to invalidate FORM DRC 01 and DRC 01A, which were meant to be electronically served but were not, thereby questioning the validity of the modes of service.

e. Finally, the petitioner seeks a writ or writs, including a writ of certiorari, to annul the attachment notice issued in FORM DRC 13, dated [date], thereby challenging the validity of the attachment notice.

In summary, the petitioner is challenging tax demands, seeking procedural rectifications, and questioning the validity of electronic service and attachment notices issued by the tax authorities.

The petitioner seeks various legal remedies through this petition. Firstly, they request the issuance of a writ of certiorari to annul a Summary of Order issued on March 21, 2020, demanding taxes, interest, and penalties for the tax periods of September 2018, December 2018, and March 2018.

Secondly, they seek another writ, including a writ of certiorari, to quash an order dated March 19, 2020, which imposed a significant tax demand, interest, and penalty totaling Rs. 31,46,273 for CGST and SGST for the same tax periods.

Thirdly, they request the issuance of a writ or writs, including a writ of mandamus, compelling the respondents to produce FORM DRC 01 and DRC 01A, which were supposed to be served electronically via the GST Portal but were not.

Fourthly, they seek a similar writ, including a writ of certiorari, to annul FORM DRC 01 and DRC 01A, which were meant to be served electronically but were not.

Fifthly, they request the issuance of a writ, including a writ of certiorari, to nullify an attachment notice issued on January 9, 2021, affecting third parties, such as banks and customers, for recovery purposes.

Sixthly, they seek a writ, including a writ of mandamus, to instruct the respondents, including a bank respondent, to release a frozen bank account (A/c No. 10839120015) as per FORM DRC 13 dated January 9, 2021.

Seventhly, they request a writ, including a writ of mandamus, to compel the respondents to refund any amount already recovered pursuant to the demand made through FORM GST DRC 07 dated March 21, 2020.

Eighthly, they seek a writ, including a writ of mandamus, after remanding the case to the assessing authority, to reassess the petitioner’s liability considering their submissions and the merits of the case, and following due procedure as prescribed in the CGST/BGST Act.

Ninthly, they request a writ, including a writ of certiorari, to annul Notification No. 49/2019 Central Tax dated October 9, 2019, which retroactively amended rules under the CGST Rules, resulting in the current tax demand.

Finally, they seek to interpret Section 16 (4) of some legislation in a manner favorable to their case.

The petitioner seeks various reliefs through this petition. Firstly, they request the issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash a Summary of Order (demand order) dated 21.03.2020, which demanded tax, interest, and penalty for the tax periods of September 2018, December 2018, and March 2018. Additionally, they seek a writ to quash an order dated 19.03.2020 that imposed tax, interest, and penalty totaling Rs. 31,46,273/- for CGST and SGST against the petitioner for the same tax periods.

Furthermore, the petitioner requests the issuance of writs, including certiorari, mandamus, and orders, to compel the respondents to produce FORM DRC 01 and DRC 01A, which were supposed to be electronically served but were not. They also seek to quash these forms if they were issued without proper service.

The petitioner further seeks to quash an attachment notice issued in FORM DRC 13 dated 09.01.2021, which affected third parties such as banks and customers for recovery purposes. They request a writ of mandamus to direct the unfreezing or detachment of a specific bank account (A/c No. 10839120015) frozen through FORM DRC 13 dated 09.01.2021.

Additionally, the petitioner demands a refund of the amount already recovered pursuant to the demand order dated 21.03.2020 and asks for a remand of the case to the assessing authority to reassess their liability after considering their submissions and following due procedure.

Moreover, they seek the quashing of Notification No. 49/2019 Central Tax dated 09/10/2019, which retrospectively amended rules under the CGST Rules, leading to the current tax demand.

The petitioner also asks the court to reinterpret Section 16(4) of the CGST/BGST Act to enable them to claim rightful input tax credit, given their timely filing of GST returns within the extended period provided by the respondents. They argue that GSTR 3B should not be considered a return under Section 39 of the CGST Act.

Furthermore, they claim that the respondents’ rejection of their input tax credit utilization violates Article 265 of the Indian Constitution and that they should not be deprived of genuine claims due to failure to file returns within the prescribed period, especially when extensions were granted by the respondents.

Lastly, they challenge Section 164(3) of the CGST Act, arguing that it allows excessive delegation of legislative powers and is therefore ultra vires. They request appropriate directions for the issuance of notifications to provide for extensions in input tax credit availment under Section 16 of the GST Act when extensions are granted for filing GST returns.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: