Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Eden Steel Alloys vs State Of Punjab And Others on 4 November, 2024
Author: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143235-DB
CWP-7458-2023(O&M)
2023(O&M) and other connected matters
1
244
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP-7458-2023(O&M)
(O&M)
M/s Eden Steel Alloys
. . . . Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others . . . . Respondents
244.2 CWP-7296-2023(O&M)
2023(O&M)
M/s Eden Steel Alloys
. . . . Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others . . . . Respondents
244.3 CWP-8313-2023(O&M)
2023(O&M)
Amitabh
. . . . Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others . . . . Respondents
244.4 CWP-8468-2023(O&M)
2023(O&M)
Sukhwinder Singh
. . . . Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others . . . . Respondents
244.5 CWP-20163-2023(O&M)
2023(O&M)
Ajay Kansal
. . . . Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others . . . . Respondents
1 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 06-11-2024 00:37:09 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143235-DB
CWP-7458-2023(O&M)
2023(O&M) and other connected matters
2
244.6 CWP-20159-2023(O&M)
2023(O&M)
Bhaskar Moudgil
. . . . Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others . . . . Respondents
244.7 CWP-20153-2023(O&M)
2023(O&M)
Ajay Kansal
. . . . Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others . . . . Respondents
244.8 CWP-20149-2023(O&M)
2023(O&M)
Bhaskar Moudgil
. . . . Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others . . . . Respondents
244.9 CWP-20144-2023(O&M)
2023(O&M)
Bhaskar Moudgil
. . . . Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others . . . . Respondents
244.10 CWP-20133-2023(O&M)
2023(O&M)
Ajay Kansal
. . . . Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others . . . . Respondents
244.11 CWP-20128-2023(O&M)
2023(O&M)
Ajay Kansal
. . . . Petitioner
Vs.
2 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 06-11-2024 00:37:10 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143235-DB
CWP-7458-2023(O&M)
2023(O&M) and other connected matters
3
State of Punjab and others . . . . Respondents
244.12 CWP-20127-2023(O&M)
2023(O&M)
Bhaskar Moudgil
. . . . Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others . . . . Respondents
244.13 CWP
CWP-19846-2023(O&M)
Balwinder Singh
. . . . Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others . . . . Respondents
244.14 CWP-19103-2023(O&M)
2023(O&M)
Amrinder Singh
. . . . Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others . . . . Respondents
244.15 CWP-19067-2023(O&M)
2023(O&M)
Surinder
der Singh
. . . . Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others . . . . Respondents
244.16 CWP-19051-2023(O&M)
2023(O&M)
Amrinder Singh
. . . . Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others . . . . Respondents
3 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 06-11-2024 00:37:10 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143235-DB
CWP-7458-2023(O&M)
2023(O&M) and other connected matters
4
244.17 CWP-18638-2023(O&M)
2023(O&M)
Honey
. . . . Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others . . . . Respondents
244.18 CWP-18489-2023(O&M)
2023(O&M)
Ajay Kansal
. . . . Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others . . . . Respondents
244.19 CWP-18327-2023(O&M)
2023(O&M)
Ajay Kansal
. . . . Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others . . . . Respondents
244.20 CWP-18323-2023(O&M)
2023(O&M)
Ajay Kansal
. . . . Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others . . . . Respondents
244.21 CWP-18293-2023(O&M)
2023(O&M)
Ajay Kansal
. . . . Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others . . . . Respondents
4 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 06-11-2024 00:37:10 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143235-DB
CWP-7458-2023(O&M)
2023(O&M) and other connected matters
5
244.22 CWP-18351-2023(O&M)
2023(O&M)
Ajay Kansal
. . . . Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others . . . . Respondents
Date of Decision: 04.11.2024
****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
****
Present: Mr. Bhuwan Vats,, Advocate for the petitioner.
(
(through video conferencing)
Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
Mr. Saurabh Goel, Sr. Standing Counsel and
Ms. Geetika Sharma, Advocate
for the respondent/revenue.
Mr. Sukant Gupta, Sr. Standing Counsel
For respondent No.7/CBIC.
****
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)
1. The present order shall dispose of aforementioned twenty
twenty-two
two writ
petitions as common question of law is involved in all the writ petitions.
2. The issue in the present writ petitions is no more res integra. Although,
learned counsel for the petitioner(s)
petitioner(s) submits that the orders have been
passed without jurisdiction and this aspect be again examined
examined, wee refrain
from doing so. The petitioner while filing the present writ petitions relies
on the notices having been issued in CWP
CWP-6288-2023
2023 and even in the
index of the writ petitions, he has mentioned of the aforesaid writ petition
i.e. CWP-6288
CWP 6288 of 2023. The said writ petition i.e. CWP
CWP-6288-2023
5 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143235-DB
CWP-7458-2023(O&M)
2023(O&M) and other connected matters
alongwith other connected writ petitions were heard by the co-ordinate
ordinate
Bench at length and relying on the law as laid down by the Supreme
Court in 'The
'The State of Punjab Vs. M/s Shiv Enterprises and others',
2023(96) GST 120, passed an order on 08.12.2023 in following terms:
"4. The sole argument as suc
such
h which has been raised is
that the goods are not in transit and, therefore, the
authorities as such had no jurisdiction. Reference is made to
the tax invoice (Annexure P
P-1)
1) wherein, the iron scrap,
which was the consignment weighing 17360 kgs valuing
Rs.8,39,876.80
,39,876.80 inclusive of tax, had been consigned to M/s.
Bansal Casting vide e-Way
Way bill (Annexure P
P-2).
2). It is, thus,
the case that the respondent authorities were acting beyond
their jurisdiction.
5. The State, in its response, has taken the plea that only
a notice has been challenged by placing reliance upon the
judgment of the Apex Court in The State of Punjab vs. M/s.
Shiv Enterprises and others, 2023 (96) GST 120. It has also
been informed that the vehicle in question as such has been
released. However, in view of the interim order, no further
proceedings are being initiated
initiated.
6. A perusal of Annexure P
P-3
3 would go on to show that
the inspection of the goods under movement was required to
be done to ascertain the genuineness of the goods in transit
or verification
ification of documents and it is on that account, show
cause notice as such was issued. We have already referred
6 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143235-DB
CWP-7458-2023(O&M)
2023(O&M) and other connected matters
to the show cause notice wherein, the tax had not been paid
on the goods which were sent to the consignor. It is for the
petitioner as such to explain as to whether the said show
cause notice has been served validly or not and explain how
the purchases have been made from M/s. BN Traders and it
is for the authorities thereafter to pass the order. It is not for
this court as such to take on the ro
role
le of the Assessing
Authority. The Apex Court has also as such in M/s. Shiv
Enterprises case (supra) gone on to hold that the exercise of
powers under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India for
entertainment of the writ petition against the show cause
notice
otice and setting aside was not justified. It is settled
principle that the writ Court is not to go into the disputed
questions of facts and it is for the petitioner as such to place
the relevant material before the respondents to show
whether there was anyy substance in the show cause notice
and tax was not being avoided by it. In M/s. Shiv
Enterprises case (supra), the co
co-ordinate
ordinate Bench as such had
set aside the order issued by the Assistant Commissioner of
State Tax, Mobile Wing, Chandigarh and the notice dated
14.09.2021 issued under Section 130 of the Central Goods
Service Tax Act, 2017. Resultantly, directions were issued to
release the conveyance and the goods in question. The order
of detention had apparently been passed and also show
cause notice dated
ed 14.09.2021 had been issued. The Apex
7 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143235-DB
CWP-7458-2023(O&M)
2023(O&M) and other connected matters
Court accordingly came to the conclusion that it is not for
this Court to opine anything whether there was any evasion
of tax or not while not interfering in the orders releasing the
goods in question. The relevant pportion reads thus:-
"Apart from the fact that the aforesaid is factually
incorrect, even otherwise, it was premature for the
High Court to opine anything on whether there was
any evasion of the tax or not. The same was to be
considered in an appropriate pr
proceeding
oceeding for which
the notice under Section 130 of the Act was issued.
Therefore, we are of the opinion that the High Court
has materially erred in entertaining the writ petition
against the show cause notice and quashing and
setting aside the same. Howeve
However,
r, at the same time, the
order passed by the High Court releasing the goods
in question is not to be interfered with as it is
reported that the goods have been released by the
appropriate authority"
7.. Resultantly, we are of the considered opinion that the
petitioner has an alternative remedy as such to put forth his
case before the respondents and thereafter the respondents
shall proceed in accordance with law. Accordingly, no
cause is made out to entertain the writ petitions any
further."
8 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143235-DB
CWP-7458-2023(O&M)
2023(O&M) and other connected matters
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that the question regarding
the authorities having no jurisdiction to have seize the goods, which were
not in transit has also been looked into and examined by the Court.
4. We find that the co-ordinate
co ordinate Bench noticed the said ar
argument
gument in
paragraph No.4 of its judgment, we therefore, do not propose to again
examine the same and the writ petitions are hereby dismissed in mutatis
mutandis.
5. All pending applications also stand disposed o
of accordingly.
(SANJEEV
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
SHARMA)
JUDGE
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
November 04,, 2024
rashmi
1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
2. Whether reportable? Yes/No
9 of 9
