Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, SUSHIL KUKREJA
Himalaya Wellness Company – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J
The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs:-
“(A) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, or any other writ quashing the show cause notice dated bearing DIM No. 20240550ZG00000039B 31.05.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Respondent No. 3 whereby the demand of Rs. 4,37,17,830/- along with interest and penalty was created.
(B) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ holding that the petitioner is rightly eligible for the input tax credit availed for the period from 2017-18 to 2021-22
(C) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue of writ in the nature of certiorari holding that the amendment to explanation to section 16(2)(b) is to be applied retrospectively.
(D) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue of writ of mandamus holding that the proceedings under Section 74 of the proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 does not survive in the absence of willful suppression.”
2. The respondents have raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the instant petition on the ground of av
The existence of an alternate statutory remedy under the CGST Act limits the maintainability of a writ petition, and no exceptional circumstances were established to bypass this requirement.
Writ petitions challenging show cause notices should not be entertained unless exceptional circumstances exist; petitioners must exhaust statutory remedies available under tax laws.
The court emphasized that while an alternative remedy is available, the High Court has the discretion to entertain a writ petition. The court also highlighted that the availability of an alternative ....
Dual proceedings concerning the same subject matter initiated by State GST authorities after Central GST proceedings are barred under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act.
The jurisdiction under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act prohibits State GST authorities from initiating parallel proceedings once Central GST proceedings have commenced on the same subject matt....
A petitioner under Article 226 must first respond to a show cause notice before approaching the court.
The High Court affirmed that the issuance of a consolidated SCN for multiple financial years under the CGST Act is permissible, emphasizing the requirement of statutory compliance and the importance ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
