M/S T. R. Enterprises vs State Of Haryana And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 12003 P&H

2023:PHHC:100695-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

220 CWP No.27461 of 2019
Date of decision:04.08.2023

M/S T.R. ENTERPRISES .... Petitioner
Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS .... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Present: | Mr.Sandeep Goyal , Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Mamta Singla Talwar, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Sourabh Goel, Sr. Standing Counsel for respondent No.4.

RR

RITU BAHRI, J. (oral)

The petitioner is seeking quashing of order in Form DRC-07 dated 22.07.2019 (Annexure P-14) passed by respondent No.3 --Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Proper Officer, Jagadhari, Yamuna Nagar. The challenge made in this writ petition is on the ground that he has no power under IGST to issue such notice and this order is in contradiction of Section 75(7) of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (for short- the CGST Act,2017) as the demand raised in the impugned order is more than the demand proposed in the notice Form DRC-01.

After notice of this petition, replies on respondents No.1 to 3 and respondent No.4 have been filed separately. As per reply filed on behalf of respondent No.4, proper officer of the State under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017 has already issued notice on 06.12.2018 (Annexure P-2). Respondent

No.4 has not summoned the petitioner again with respect to the above fact, the

JYOTI

2023.08.07 10:26

| attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order

proper officer of the Sale Tax was informed vide letter dated 02.02.2019. So far as respondent No.1 is concerned, they are not pursuing anything against the petitioner. As per reply filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3, the Excise and Taxation Officer has already passed the order dated 22.07.2019 (Annexure P-14), and the same is appealable.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not in touch with him.

Hence, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage as the grievance of the petitioner that respondent No.4 had also initiated similar proceedings, does not survive as per reply filed by respondent No.4 and order dated 22.07.2019 (Annexure P-14) is appealable. However, the petitioner is at

liberty to avail the remedy in accordance with law.

(RITU BAHRI) JUDGE

(MANISHA BATRA) 04.08.2023 JUDGE

Jyoti-IV Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No.

Whether reportable : Yes/No

JYOTI

2023.08.07 10:26

| attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order