M/S LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

WPT/259/2023

AI Insights

The case involves M/s L G Electronics India Pvt. Ltd, which filed a writ petition challenging the jurisdiction and validity of a show cause notice and a draft show cause notice issued by the respondents under the GST Act. The petitioner argued that these notices were issued without jurisdiction and violated legal provisions. The respondents contended that the petitioner had an alternative remedy through the appellate authority under the GST Act, which should be pursued instead of a writ petition. The court agreed with the respondents, emphasizing that the issues raised, including the delay in issuing the show cause notice, could be adequately addressed by the appellate authority.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 725959 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 15-02-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: MANISH SHAR MA; GARY MUKHOPADHYAY
• Assessee Lawyers: YOGENDRA ALDAK; KATYANI PRIYA
• Keywords: Central Tax; GST Act; Jurisdiction; Legality; Propriety; Show cause notice; State tax; Validity; Transitional input tax credit
• Section: ZN22-09230483913; AD2210230000671

Judgement Text

"NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPT No. 259 of 2023 • M/s L G Electronics India Pvt. Ltd (A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956) Through Its Authorized Signatory, Mr. Puneet Shukla, S/ o Ramakant Shukla Aged About 41 Years, Branch Accounts Manager 3rd Floor, Block/ Unit- 3011-3104, Currency Tower, Vip Road, Rani Durgavati Ward No- 45, Raipur Chhattisgarh- 492001 ---- Petitioner Versus 1. Deputy Commissioner CGST And Central Excise, Division- 1, 3rd Floor, A-B Block, Near Pachpedi Naka, Tikarapara Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001 2. Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax Jurisdiction Raipur Division 2, Chhattisgarh 3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Ministry Of Finance Department, Mantralaya Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Union Of India Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Finance Department Of Revenue North Block, New Delhi. ---- Respondents --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For petitioner : Mr. Yogendra Aldak, Advocate with Ms. Katyani Vishnu Priya, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1& 2 : Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate. For State : Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, GA. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas. Order on Board (15-02-2024) 1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the jurisdiction, validity, legality and propriety of the show cause notice having reference No. ZN22- 09230483913 issued on 1-10-2023 (Annexure P/1) under case ID AD2210230000671 created on 1-10-2023 and the draft show cause notice dated 24-5-2023 (Annexure P/2) issued by the respondent No.1 without jurisdiction and in utter violation of law. 2. The record of the case would show that the petitioner has filed this writ petitioner on 6-11-2023 and thereafter the assessment order was passed by the respondent on 19-12-2023 which is also annexed with the application for amendment. 2 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue would submit that since the order has been passed, petitioner has an alternative and efficacy remedy of filing the appeal before the Commissioner Appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned notice and the draft show cause notice issued by the respondent No.1 is without jurisdiction, wholly arbitrary and legally unsustainable. He would further submit that since during pendency of the petition the Assessing Authority has passed the impugned order dated 19-12- 2023 (Annexure P/2-A) by which demand of transitional input tax credit of Central Tax of Rs.10,86,741/- and recovery of interest on wrongly availed transitional input tax credit penalty oof Rs. 1,08,674/- has been ordered. He would further submit that the alternative remedy available to the petitioner is not efficacious, therefore, the petitioner has approached this court by way of writ petition for quashing of the impugned notice He would fuhrer submit that the petitioner has raised jurisdictional issue regarding limitation which can be decided by this court on the face of record. As such, even availability of alternative remedy of appeal under Income Tax, the writ petition is maintainable. 5. This was disputed by learned counsel for the Revenue and he would submit that issuance of show cause notice with delay can be raised before the appellate Authority also. He would further submit that issuance of notice on delay is a question of fact and law which can be very well determined by the Appellate Authority under the GST Act. 6. Considering the submission that whether the show cause notice issued is barred by limitation or not that can be very well raised in the appeal before the Appellate Authority as well as the impugned order dated 19-12-2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner by filing duly constituted appeal under the GST Act, therefore, the submission made by the petitioner that the writ petition is maintainable, deserves to be rejected and it is accordingly rejected and the writ petition is disposed of as not maintainable granting liberty 3 to the petitioner to file duly constituted appeal before the appellate authority. In the eventuality of filing of the appeal as per the GST Act, the appellate authority shall decide the appeal on its own merit including the jurisdictional issue raised by the petitioner regarding limitation period for issuance of show cause notice and also all permissible grounds attacking the impugned order dated 19-12-2023 in accordance with law. 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) JUDGE Raju "