M/S Timco Steel Company Vs the UOI and Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.9485 of 2024 Date of decision: 07.07.2026

M/s Timco Steel Company. ...Petitioner. Versus Union of India & Ors. …Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶4

For the petitioner : Mr. J.S. Bedi, Advocate (through VC) and Mr. Goverdhan Lal Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Virbahadur Verma, CGC, for respondent No.1-UOI. : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Sushant Keprate, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.2-State. : Mr. Vijay K. Arora, Senior Advocate with Mr. Hitansh Raj and Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Advocates, for respondents No.3 to 5.

¶5

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge

¶6

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking following substantial relief(s):-

¶7

“(i) For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari/ mandamus for quashing/reading down the provisions of Section 16(2)(c) of the Central GST Act / Himachal Pradesh GST Act, 2017 read with Central GST Act, 2017 which restrict the claim of Input Tax Credit in case the tax has not been actually paid to the government either in cash or through utilization of Input Tax Credit being violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g), 265 and 300A of the Constitution of India and also for the reason that

¶8

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

¶9

-2-

¶10

by way of the Provisions of Section 16(2)(c), the petitioner is being asked to do an impossible task which is otherwise not possible in absence of any mechanism provided by the Government.

¶11

(ii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the notice dated 09.07.2024, 24.07.2024 and 01.08.2024.

¶12

(iii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents not to proceed further in pursuance to notice, summons issued by Respondent no. 3 along with intimation of tax ascertained payable under section 74 in form DRC-01 for the period 2017-18 to 2022-23.”

¶13

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, at present,

¶14

the petitioner does not press Relief Nos. (i) & (iii), reserving the right to agitate the issue in an appropriate petition, if so required/desired.

¶15

The petitioner has approached this Court assailing notices dated 09.07.2024 (Annexure P-1), 24.07.2024 (Annexure P-2) and 01.08.2024 (Annexure P-3). It is claim of the petitioner that replies to the aforesaid notices had been submitted. However, no such averment has been made in the writ petition, nor copies of alleged replies been placed on record. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has also denied receipt of any such replies. Nevertheless, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, without entering into the said controversy, petitioner may be permitted to file detailed replies to the aforesaid notices, which are under challenge by way of Relief No. (ii) in the present petition.

¶16

It has been further submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied if the concerned authorities are directed to consider the claim/objections afresh along with documents filed/to be filed by or on

¶17

-3-

¶18

behalf of the petitioner before the competent authority in response to the aforesaid summary show cause notices/detailed notices specifically dealing that whether payments on purchases in question, along with GST, were 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).

¶19

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.

¶20

Learned Advocate General as well as Mr. Vijay K. Arora, Senior Counsel submit that, in case the petitioner files a fresh response to the summary show cause notices/detailed notices 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.

¶21

In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of by directing the competent authority to consider the objections along with documents, if so filed, within 28 days from today in response to the

¶22

-4-

¶23

show cause notices/detailed notices dated 09.07.2024 (Annexure P-1), 24.07.2024 (Annexure P-2) and 01.08.2024 (Annexure P-3), by keeping in view the aforesaid submissions made by the petitioner and to pass an appropriate speaking and reasoned order thereupon within 06 weeks from the date of filing of such objections/response. In case no objections are filed within 28 days in response to the show cause notices/detailed notices, the competent authority shall proceed further in accordance with law, treating that the petitioner has nothing to say in response to the said notices.

¶24

Petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms along with

¶25

pending applications, if any.

¶26

(Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge

¶27

(Ranjan Sharma) Judge

¶28

7^th July, 2026 (Pardeep)

M/S Timco Steel Company v. the UOI and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Timco Steel Company v. the UOI and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Kanda Wine Vs State of Hp and Others

Ranjana W/o Sh. Pawan Kumar Vs Pawan Kumar S/o Sh. Sanotkha Ram

Prem Chand Katna Vs the Income Tax Officer and Others

Naval Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Sunil Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Another

M/S Friends Alloys Vs the UOI and Others