WPMS/155/2021
2021 Latest Caselaw 757 UK

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                     AT NAINITAL
        ON THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021
                        BEFORE:
 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI


     WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 155 of 2021

BETWEEN:

Resizone Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.                ..........Petitioner
     (Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, Advocate)

AND:
Director General of Anti
Profiteering, Taxes and Customs
Department of Revenue,
Ministry of Finance and others.            ....Respondents
     (There is no representation for the respondents)


                      JUDGMENT

Petitioner is a Builder, against whom a complaint was made by a home buyer that he has not passed on the benefit of reduction of tax rate under the G.S.T. Regime. Based on the said complaint, summon has been issued against the petitioner on 12.01.2021 by Additional Assistant Director, Directorate General of Anti-Profiteering, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi. The said notice has been issued under Section 70 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Rule 132 of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 and petitioner has been asked to produce the documents, as indicated in the summon, before the Directorate General of Anti-Profiteering.

2. It is settled position in law that no writ petition is maintainable against a show cause notice or summons.

3. Since no order, adversely affecting the interest of the petitioner, has been passed against him, therefore, the writ petition is premature. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that petitioner has submitted his reply in response to the earlier summons issued to him by the respondent authorities, therefore, petitioner has not responded to the impugned summon dated 12.01.2021.

5. Be that as it may, if petitioner has responded to similar summons earlier issued to him by the respondent authority, then the respondent authority shall consider the reply submitted by the petitioner to such summons and take appropriate decision, in accordance with law, as early as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the order.

(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.) Arpan