Disposed

M/S Ramada Engineering Industry v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC11 Jul 2024W.P.(C)/9367/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Show Cause Notice and subsequent order under the GST Act. The Court held that since the petitioner has an efficacious remedy before the Appellate Authority, the petition was not entertained.

What did the court decide?

Application for exemption allowed; Writ Petition disposed of with directions to Appellate Authority.

M/S Ramada Engineering Industry Vs Union of India & Ors. — GST and Indirect Tax | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~95

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 9367/2024 & CM No.38502/2024 M/S RAMADA ENGINEERING INDUSTRY .....Petitioner Through: Mr. A.K. Maggu, Mr. Vikas Sareen, Mrs. Maninder Kaur & Mrs. O. Maggu, Advs.

¶4

Versus

¶5

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Badar Mahmood, Adv. for R-1. Ms. Sonu Bhatnagar, Ms. Nistha Mittal, Ms. Apurva Singh, Advs. for R-2. Mr. Rajeev Aggarwal & Mr. Shubham Goel, Advs. for R-3.

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

¶7

O R D E R % 11.07.2024

¶8

CM No.38503/2024 (for exemption)

¶9

Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exception.

¶10

The application is disposed of.

¶11

W.P.(C) No.9367/2024

¶12

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning a Show Cause Notice dated 23.09.2023 (hereafter the impugned SCN ) issued under Section 73 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter CGST Act ) and State Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter SGST Act ) and the Rules made thereunder. The petitioner also impugns the order dated 29.12.2023 (hereafter the impugned order ) passed pursuant to the aforementioned impugned SCN.

¶13

The principal contention advanced by the petitioner is that the impugned SCN as well as the impugned order have been issued by an authority which did

¶14

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/07/2025 at 01:43:19

¶15

not have the jurisdiction to issue the same. It is contended that the value of the demand exceeds the pecuniary limits of the proper officer that had issued the impugned SCN and the impugned order. In addition, it is submitted that neither the impugned SCN nor the impugned order are signed.

¶16

Apart from the above, the petitioner also challenges the merits of the said decision to raise the demand. 6. Mr. Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3 submits that the impugned SCN and the impugned order mention a reference number, which cannot be generated without the proper officer affixing his signatures on the impugned SCN and the impugned order. He submits that although the portal does not reflect that the impugned SCN and the impugned order are signed but in fact the same have been digitally signed as is evident from the fact that the impugned SCN and the impugned order bear reference numbers. 7. He also submits that the petitioner has filed an appeal against the impugned order and it is open for the petitioner to raise all contentions before the appellate authority. 8. Undisputedly, the petitioner has an equally efficacious remedy and has in fact availed the same. Thus, we do not consider it apposite to entertain this petition. It is expected that the Appellate Authority shall consider all contentions including those as raised in the present petition, and take an informed decision.

¶17

The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Pending application is also disposed of.

¶18

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶19

SACHIN DATTA, J

¶20

JULY 11, 2024 ‘gsr’ Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶21

M/S Ramada Engineering Industry v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Ramada Engineering Industry v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kannu Singh Harit Vs Gnct. of Delhi & Ors.

Vineet Sehgal Vs Union of India through Its Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs & Ors.

Somaya Gupta Vs the Chief Proctor Jnu & Ors.

Melco India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 16 (1) & Ors.

M/S Ramakrishna Electro Components Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and Others

Smt Roshni Devi Vs the Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Gyanankur Vs Food Corporation of India & Ors.

Shukla Rani Vs Union of India & Ors.

R N Garg and Sons through Proprietor Aman Garg Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S Rajdhani Trading Co. Vs Principal Commissioner of Department of Trade and Taxes, Government of NCT of Delhi

Gold Step Tobacco Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs Itc Limited

M/S Essence Communication Pvt. Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Goods Service Tax, Audit-Ii, Delhi

M/S M.S. Rainbow Products Vs Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax and Others

M.M Dhonchak Vs Union of India