HC Dismissed Writ Challenging Notification Which Denied Appeal in Respect of Demand Not Involving Tax

  • Blog|News|GST & Customs|
  • 2 Min Read
  • By Taxmann
  • |
  • Last Updated on 1 May, 2024

Writ Challenging Notification

Case Details: Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. Union of India - [2024] 161 taxmann.com 653 (Chhattisgarh)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • Ramesh Sinha, CJ. & Mrs Rajani Dubey, J.
  • Bharat RaichandaniOmkar Sharma & K. Rohan, Advs. for the Petitioner.
  • Ramakant Mishra, Dy. Solicitor General, R.S. Marhas, Additional Adv. General & Maneesh Sharma, Adv. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner filed refund application for unutilized ITC of GST paid on coal. The department issued show cause notice on ground that supply of electricity to township was a non-business activity. The order was passed and a portion of refund was rejected. The petitioner received said order after a period of more than one year had passed.

It filed appeal against the order but the same was rejected on ground of limitation. It filed writ petition and challenging Notification No. 53/2023-CT which provided that no appeal under this notification shall be admissible in respect of a demand not involving tax.

High Court Held

The Honorable High Court noted that the petitioner filed appeal after a delay of 1 year 1 month and no cogent reason was afforded for such an inordinate delay. The appeal filed by the petitioner was barred by limitation and it was not in a position to avail the benefit of the extension of the time period granted by the Notification No. 53/2023-CT.

Further, the Court also noted that no cogent reason was assigned as to how clause 5 of impugned notification was ultra vires to Constitution of India. Therefore, the Court held that the relief sought by petitioner to declare clause 5 of impugned notification as ultra vires shall not be accepted and the writ petition was dismissed.

List of Cases Referred to

  • Union of India v. N.S. Rathnam & Sons [2015] 60 taxmann.com 342/51 GST 852/34 GSTR 38 (SC) (para 10),
  • Bhavnagar university v. Palitana Sugar Mills (2003) 2 SCC 111 (para 11)
  • Arvind Gupta v. Asstt. Commissioner of State Taxes [WPA No. 2903 of 2024] (para 13).

Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Everything on Tax and Corporate Laws of India

To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com