2025(05)LCX0078

Jain Enterprises

Versus

State of H. P.

CWP No. 8383 of 2025 decided on 21-05-2025

2025:HHC:15136

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

CWP No. 8383 of 2025
Date of decision: 21.05.2025

M/s Jain Enterprises                                  …Petitioner

                                Versus

State of H. P. & Anr.                              …Respondents

Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? No.

For the Petitioner:        Mr. Sachit Singla, Advocate & Mr.
                                   Arvind Sharma, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, A.G. with Ms. Sharmila
                                 Patial, Mr. Sushant Kaprate,
                                  Addl. A.Gs. and Mr. Raj Negi, Dy.A.G.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral)

The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs:-

“(i) a) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the Impugned combined Show Cause Notice dated 02.06.2023 (Annexure P-4) issued by Respondent No.2 u/s 74 of the HPGST/CGST act, whereby a demand of GST amounting to Rs. 12,16,57,928/- (Twelve Crore Sixteen Lakh Fifty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty Eight only) including interest and penalty on account of alleged excess/ineligible input tax credit availed by the Petitioner, being wholly without jurisdiction, illegal, nonest, arbitrary, cryptic, vague, without application of mind, in violation of principles of Natural Justice and against the provisions of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

ii) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the Impugned Order in Form DRC-07 dated 21.04.2025 (Annexure P-7) passed by Respondent no.2 u/s 74 of the HPGST/CGST Rs.1,14,81,344/- (One Crore Fourteen Lakh Eighty One Thousand Three Hundred and Forty Four only) including interest and penalty on account of alleged excess/ineligible input tax credit availed by the Petitioner, being wholly without jurisdiction, illegal, non-est, arbitrary, without application of mind, in violation of principles of Natural Justice and against the provisions of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

iii) Stay the operation of the Impugned Combined Show Cause Notice dated 02.06.2023 (Annexure P-4) and order dated 21.04.2025 (Annexure P-7) in Form DRC-07 for F.Y. 2018-19 issued/passed by Respondent No.2, during the pendency of the present writ petition,, in the interest of justice.

iv) Directing the respondents to refrain from taking any coercive action against the petitioner, during the pendency of the present writ petition.

v) Issue of any other appropriate order(s) or direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case and in the interest of justice in favour of the petitioner.

vi) Dispense with filing of certified as well as true typed copies of Annexures P-1 to P-7.

vii) Dispense with the serving of advance services of notices to respondents.

viii) Permission be granted to place on record the photocopies of Annexure P-1 to P-7.”

2. Evidently, the petitioner has come up against the show cause notice and would still complain that principles of natural justice have been violated that too without even replying to the show cause notice or appearing before the said authority. Therefore, this plea of the petitioner is not at all tenable. Moreover, the show cause notice issued to the petitioner is after issuance of DRC-07.

3. It is not the case where the Court is directing the petitioner to avail of an alternate remedy rather the Court is of the view that the petitioner has to face the show cause notice and reply to the same. Violation of the principles of natural justice will only come into play, in case, the respondents do not afford a chance to the petitioner to furnish reply to the show cause notice. This is not the fact situation obtaining in the present case.

4. Clearly, the present petition is a misadventure and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also pending applications, if any.

21^st May, 2025