M/S Prime Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and Others

¶1

1 2026:HHC:15344

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

CWP No. 6069 of 2024 Date of decision: 10.07.2026.

¶4

M/s Prime Steel Industries Pvt Ltd ...Petitioner.

¶5

Versus

¶6

Union of India & Ors. …Respondents.pondents.ondents. Corum Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioner : Mr. J.S Bedi, Advocate (through V.C) & Mr. Rajesh Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Bharat Bhushan, Senior Penal Counsel, for respondent No.1. Mr.Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Sushant Keprate, Additional Advocate General & Mr. Raj Negi, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 2-State

¶7

…Respondents.pondents.ondents.

¶8

Mr. Vijay Kumar Arora, Senior Advocate with Mr. Hitansh Raj, Mr. Ankit Chauhan and Ms. Avantika Bhandari Advocates for respondents No.3 to 6- CGST Department.

¶9

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral)

¶10

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking following

¶11

main substantial relief(s):-

¶12

“(i) For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents not to proceed further in pursuance to show cause notice no.VIDE DIN202208DNN3000000AA88 dated 31.08.2022 as the show cause notice was issued without issuing ASMT-10 (Annexure P-3) beside this show cause notice was issued without appreciating the factual and legal position as petitioner has already paid the

¶13

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?

¶14

2 2026:HHC:15344

¶15

tax to the sellers and in his possession all the documents required for claiming the ITC and the petitioner cannot be forced to do the impossible act that seller has discharged it tax liability or not.

¶16

(ii) For issuance of a writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction calling for the records pertaining to the petitioners’ case and after going into the validity and legality thereof to quash and set aside notice dated 31.08.2022 issued for denying the Input tax credit to the petitioner.

¶17

(iii) Pass such or similar order as deem fit in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as passed in CWP No.1793 of 2024 by the Hon. Himachal Pradesh High Court and in CWP No.10248 of 2024 by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court and in CWP NO.4706 of 2024 of Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court.”

¶18

The petitioner has approached this Court after issuing show cause notice dated 31.08.2022 thereafter till date the matter is pending before the Concerned Authority and no further action has been taken. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays to file detailed reply along with relevant documents to the show cause notice so as to enable the Concerned Authority to adjudicate the matter in accordance with law.

¶19

It has been further submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied if the concerned authorities are directed to consider the claim/objections afresh alongwith documents filed/to be filed by or on behalf of the petitioner before the competent authority in response to the aforesaid show cause notice specifically dealing that whether payments on purchases in question, along with GST, were

¶20

3 2026:HHC:15344

¶21

actually paid or not to the supplier (RTP) and whether the transactions and purchases in question are genuine and supported by valid documents, and whether transactions and purchase in question were made before or after the cancellation of the supplier’s registration, as well as compliance with statutory obligations by the petitioner regarding verification of the identity of the supplier (RTP).

¶22

It has been further submitted that, if upon consideration of the relevant documents, it is found that all purchases and transactions are genuine and supported by valid documents and were made prior to the cancellation of the supplier’s registration, the petitioner be granted the benefit of input tax credit in question.

¶23

Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Vijay Kumar Arora and learned Advocate General submit that in case the petitioner files a fresh response to the reply to the show cause notice before the competent authority along with relevant documents to substantiate the claim of petitioner, the competent authority shall decide the same within a reasonable time.

¶24

In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of by directing the competent authority to consider the objections/reply along with documents, if so filed, within 28 days from today in response to the show cause notice dated 31.08.2022 (Annexure P-3), by keeping in view the aforesaid submissions made by the petitioner and to pass an appropriate speaking and reasoned

¶25

4 2026:HHC:15344

¶26

order thereupon within 06 weeks from the date of filing of such objections/reply. In case no objections are filed within 28 days in response to the show cause notice, the competent authority shall proceed further in accordance with law, treating that the petitioner has nothing to say in response to the said notices.

¶27

Petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms along with pending applications, if any.

¶28

(Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge

¶29

(Ranjan Sharma) Judge

¶30

July 10, 2026

¶31

(meera)

M/S Prime Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Prime Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajiv Kohli Vs Income Tax Officer and Another

Meena Kumari Vs Income Tax Officer and Others

Vijay Kumar Vs Pushpa Devi

M/S Luxmi Builders (Atul) through proprietor Atul Thakur Vs Joint Commissioner (in-Situ) Cgst Division Dharmashala

Vikas Aggarwal Vs Income Tax Officer and Others

Renuka and Another Vs State of Hp