M/S Manpar Icon Technologies Lko. Thru. Authorized Signatory Mr. Parag Garg vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Finance Deptt. of Revenue New Delhi and 4 Others

Court No. - 2

Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 313 of 2024

Petitioner :- M/S Manpar Icon Technologies Lko. Thru. Authorized Signatory Mr. Parag Garg Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Finance Deptt. Of Revenue New Delhi And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Tushar Mittal,Parth Anand Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Anindya Shastri,C.S.C.,Dipak Seth,Paavan Awasthi

¶4

Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶5

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Paavan Awasthi, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1 and Sri Anindya Shastri, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 and 4.

¶6

2. In the main matter i.e. WRIT TAX No. - 342 of 2024 we have already passed the order dated 13.1.2025 in the following terms:-

¶7

"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Paavan Awasthi, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1 and Sri Anindya Shastri, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 3 and 4.

¶8

2. While Single Judge Bench of Gauhati High Court in the case of Barkataki Print And Media Services Vs. Union of India (2024) 22 Centax 479 (Gau.) has held post facto ratification by the GST would not validate a Notification issued by the Government under Section 168-A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ( in short 'the Act, 2017') , a Division Bench of Telangana High Court in the case of M/s. Brunda Infra Pvt. Limited and other Vs. The Additional Commissioner of Central Tax and others (Writ Petition No. 1154 of 2024) has held that though a recommendation as envisaged in Section 168-A of the Act, 2017 has to be prior to the Notification referred therein but it has protected the Notification under the orders issued by Hon'ble The Supreme Court in Suo Motu in Writ Petition No. 3 of 2020 by which the the limitation was extended for the purpose of appeal, revision and other proceedings under enactments, however, twist in the tail is that on account of a Notification having been placed by the petitioner said to have been issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs i.e. circulation 20.7.2021 under Section 168 (1) of the Act, 2017 wherein while dealing with the applicability of the orders passed by Hon'ble The Supreme Court extending the limitation as aforesaid i.e. order dated 27.4.2021 it has opined that said order is applicable in respect of any appeal which is required to be filed before Joint/Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Commissioner (Appeals), Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, Tribunal and various courts any quasi- judicial orders or where proceedings for revision or rectification of any order is required to be undertaken, and is not applicable to any other proceedings under GST

¶9

Laws, therefore, submission is that it is not open for the opposite parties to take a contrary plea to justify the impugned orders.

¶10

3. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the matter requires consideration and even though the challenge herein is to the the assessment order for the year 2019-20, as jurisdictional issues are involved we provide that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in pursuance to the impugned order, especially as, ultimately, if it is held that the Notification dated 28.12.2023 was not preceded by the recommended of the GST counsel and it was fatal to it and the opposite parties could not be permitted to take a ground contrary to their own circular dated 20.7.2021 then the petitioner may have a case and the legal position also appears to be fluid at least, as of now and also as another view viz- a-viz the one taken by the Telangana High Court appears to be possible.

¶11

4. In order to secure the interest of justice, it is provided that bank guarantee of Rs. 50 Lakhs i.e. 10% of the amount which is involved under the impugned order, which is about Rs. 5 crores shall be furnished by the petitioner to the proper officer concerned, because in this case, jurisdictional issues being involved, the petitioner does not admit any amount payable under the impugned order.

¶12

5. Pleadings be exchanged between the parties within eights weeks.

¶13

6. List on 17.3.2025 along with connected petitions."

¶14

3. As the parties' counsel says that issues in the present petition are almost similar/same as in the main matter/petition i.e. WRIT TAX No. - 342 of 2024, therefore, we provide that the benefit of the interim order passed by us in the above mentioned petition shall be applicable to the petitioner herein on the same terms subject of-course to the bank guarantee to be furnished by the petitioner, which shall be 10% of the amount payable under the impugned order.

¶15

4. Pleadings be exchanged between the parties within eights weeks.

¶16

5. List on 17.3.2025 along with connected petitions.

¶17

[Brij Raj Singh, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.]

¶18

Order Date :- 13.1.2025 Anuj Singh

¶19

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

M/S Manpar Icon Technologies Lko. Thru. Authorized Signatory Mr. Parag Garg v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Finance Deptt. of Revenue New Delhi and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Manpar Icon Technologies Lko. Thru. Authorized Signatory Mr. Parag Garg v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Finance Deptt. of Revenue New Delhi and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

The Associated Journals Ltd. Thru. Auth. Representative Mr. Sanjeev Kumar vs Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Lko and 2 Others

Vimlesh Kumari vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lko. and 2 Others

Neeraj Kumar Verma @ Neeraj Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. and 7 Others

Vimlesh Kumari vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lko. and 2 Others

M/S Abhay Sahni Projects Private Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Finance and 3 Others

M/S Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Service Ltd. Thru. Signatory vs Union of India Thru.Secy. Ministry Finance Deptt. of Revenue New Delhi and 3 Others