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
Latest from Taxmann
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 Raichandani, Omkar 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.
Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied
Everything on Tax and Corporate Laws of India
To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com
CA | CS | CMA
