HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8171/2025 Hindustan Zinc Limited ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent Connected With D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8172/2025 Hindustan Zinc Limited ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8173/2025 Hindustan Zinc Limited ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. V. Sridharan, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Sharad Kothari, Mr. Narendra Singhvi &

Mr. Dinesh Bishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG assisted by Mr. Harshvardhan Singh Mr. Nilesh Choudhary on behalf of Mr. Kuldeep Vaishnav HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL

Order

02/05/2025

1. Heard on admission and stay.

2. The petitions are admitted for hearing.

3. Pressing the applications for stay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that present petitions have been filed challenging the order-in-original and validity of notifications dated

31.03.2023 and 01.04.2023 on strong tenable grounds.

It is contended that the order-in-original is outcome of proceedings drawn beyond period of limitation and also a case of defective decision making process. It is submitted that merely because the petitioner initially expressed its inability to provide certain details and the case was initiated on the basis of raid conducted, it cannot be said to be a case of willful misstatement or suppression of facts, so as to invoke extended period of limitation. There is no clear allegation so as to require reply to the show cause notice that it was a case of tax evasion. Further submission is that the show cause notice is vague and in the absence of proper specific allegations of evasion and absence of foundation on which impugned order is premised, the impugned order itself is in excess of jurisdiction. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is the Central GST Authority and not the State GST Authority to act as proper officer and, therefore, on this ground also, entire proceedings are without jurisdiction.

4. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, mine development and various activities including purchase of land and machinery etc. have wrongly been held to be part of construction activities and incorrectly treated as blocked Input Tax Credit (for short ‘ITC’) under Clause (d) of sub-Section (5) of Section 17 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘the CGST Act, 2017) and Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘the RGST Act,2017’). It is also submitted that notifications impugned are ultra vires the power conferred under Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017/RGST Act, 2017 and therefore, in any case, extended period of limitation was not available under the law.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy of availing statutory appeal. It is argued that it cannot be said to be a case where authority acted wholly without jurisdiction. The show cause notice was duly issued to the petitioner and after drawing proceedings, as provided under Sections 73 and 74 of the RGST Act, 2017, and affording proper opportunity, detailed and speaking order has been passed holding that the petitioner is not entitled to avail ITC in view of the provisions contained in Clause (d) of sub-Section (5) of Section 17 of the RGST Act, 2017. The finding with regard to ineligibility of the petitioner to avail ITC on purchase of various items to provide services is based on application of law upon assessment of factual averments and material on record and cannot be said to be either perverse or without any basis. Whether or not those findings are warranted, could not be a subject matter of writ where there exists alternative efficacious remedy of appeal.

6. Learned State Counsel would further submit that detailed order passed by