Shirdi Sai Electricals Limited VS State of Bihar

In the case of Shirdi Sai Electricals Limited versus the State of Bihar, heard in the Patna High Court with Justice S. Kumar presiding, the matter revolved around the issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to invalidate the summary best-judgment assessment orders made under Section 62 of the CGST Act, 2017 for the months spanning June 2019 to September 2019, and specifically for November 2019 and December 2019. Additionally, the case sought to nullify the recovery notices dated 10th February 2020 and 26th February 2020, issued in Form DRC-13 to Respondents No. 4, 5, and 6, under Section 79 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner requested the court to either issue the writs to quash the assessment orders and recovery notices or to pass any other order deemed appropriate by the court given the circumstances of the case.

In the case of Shirdi Sai Electricals Limited versus the State of Bihar, brought before the Patna High Court under Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5435 of 2020, Justice S. Kumar presiding, the petitioner sought the issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to quash the summary best-judgment assessment orders under Section 62 of the CGST Act, 2017 for the months of June 2019 to September 2019, November 2019, and December 2019. Additionally, they sought to annul the recovery notices issued on 10.02.2020 and 26.02.2020 in Form DRC-13 to Respondents No. 4, 5, and 6 under Section 79 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that no amount was due and payable, and the issuance of recovery notices lacked proper scrutiny, rendering them illegal.

The petitioner argued that the impugned orders were passed without the application of mind and cited a precedent where a similar assessment order was withdrawn under comparable circumstances, indicating inconsistency in the State’s actions.

Shri Vikash Kumar, representing the petitioner as learned Standing Counsel No. 11, referred to a previous order by the Bench, which outlined the relief sought by the petitioner, including the quashing of an appellate order dated 05.03.2020.

The petitioner’s case hinges on the assertion that the assessment orders and subsequent recovery notices were erroneous, lacking proper deliberation and justification. They sought judicial intervention to rectify the alleged procedural flaws and uphold their rights under the CGST Act, 2017.

The court is tasked with evaluating the merits of the petitioner’s claims, considering legal precedents and statutory provisions, to determine whether the impugned actions by the State of Bihar warrant intervention through the issuance of writs or any other appropriate orders.

Shirdi Sai Electricals Limited took a case to the Patna High Court against the State of Bihar, represented by Justice S. Kumar. The case was filed under Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5435 of 2020 and the judgment was delivered on May 12, 2022.

The petitioner requested the court to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to annul or set aside the summary best-judgment assessment orders issued under Section 62 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 for the months of June 2019 to September 2019, November 2019, and December 2019. Additionally, they sought to revoke the recovery notices dated February 10, 2020, and February 26, 2020, sent in Form DRC-13 to Respondents No. 4, 5, and 6 under Section 79 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that no amount was due and payable, and the recovery notices were issued without proper consideration, thereby constituting an illegal order.

The petitioner also referenced a previous case where a similar assessment order was withdrawn by the State under similar circumstances.

During the proceedings, Shri Vikash Kumar, learned Standing Counsel No. 11, brought to the court’s attention an order issued by the bench, which detailed the petitioner’s prayer for relief. The relief sought included the quashing of an appellate order dated March 5, 2020, rejecting the petitioner’s appeal, as well as the annulment of an ex parte assessment order dated September 14, 2019. The petitioner also requested a declaration that their statutory return filed in Form GSTR 3B for July 2019 should stand merged with the assessment order. Moreover, they sought a declaration that the determination of tax and interest liability under Section 62 of the CGST Act, 2017, should not be based on presumptions but rather on actual figures provided in the return for the tax period in question.

The petitioner argued that their appeal raised contentions regarding the applicability of various provisions of the CGST Act, 2017, including Sections 16, 37, 39, 44, and 62, which were not adequately addressed in the appellate order.

The case revolves around the petitioner’s challenge to the legality and validity of the assessment orders and recovery notices issued by the State under the CGST Act, 2017, for specific tax periods. They sought relief from the court, including the annulment of these orders and notices, citing lack of proper consideration and the application of presumptive figures rather than actual data.

The case titled “Shirdi Sai Electricals Limited VS State of Bihar” was brought before the Patna High Court, presided over by Justice S. Kumar, under Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5435 of 2020. The judgment was delivered on May 12, 2022.

The petitioner sought the issuance of a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ to annul the summary best-judgment assessment orders passed under Section 62 of the CGST Act, 2017 for the months of June 2019 to September 2019, November 2019, and December 2019, along with the recovery notices dated 10.02.2020 and 26.02.2020 issued in Form DRC-13 to Respondents No. 4, 5, and 6, under Section 79 of the CGST Act, 2017. Additionally, they requested any other order deemed fit by the Court considering the circumstances.

The petitioner contended that no amount was due and payable, asserting that the recovery notices were issued without proper consideration, thus rendering them illegal. They cited a similar instance where the State withdrew a similar impugned order under analogous circumstances.

The learned Standing Counsel No. 11, Shri Vikash Kumar, brought to the Court’s attention an order passed by the Bench regarding a related matter. The petitioner had prayed for several reliefs, including the quashing of an appellate order dated 05.03.2020 and an ex parte assessment order dated 14.09.2019. They also sought a declaration that the impugned assessment order stood merged with the statutory return filed by the petitioner for the relevant month and questioned the validity of the assessment based on presumptive figures.

The petitioner challenged the appellate order on the grounds that the contentions regarding certain provisions of the CGST Act, 2017 were not considered. They also highlighted the non-constitution of the Tribunal as envisaged under the Act, prompting them to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

After hearing arguments from both sides, the Court opined that the petitioner should approach the appellate authority to address the issues raised before the Court and point out any errors apparent on the record. The Court emphasized that the petitioner still had the right to avail themselves of statutory provisions even after the issuance of the order under Section 62 of the Act. However, the Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and left it to the wisdom of the appellate authority to consider the issues raised in light of the facts presented.

In conclusion, the Court directed the petitioner to pursue their remedies before the appellate authority, taking into account the arguments and issues raised before the Court.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: