Petitioner sought certiorari to quash a Section 74(1) CGST show-cause notice demanding GST on Extra Neutral Alcohol, contending the respondents lacked jurisdiction. The Court held the petitioner should have replied to the notice instead of approaching it prematurely, and dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
- 1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6369 WP No. 104541 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G.UMA
WRIT PETITION NO.104541/2021(T-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/S. SHREE RENUKA SUGARS LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS SR. GENERAL MANAGER (TEXATION), SRI. RAHUL PATIL, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, CTS NO. 10634, RS NO. 1356, 2ND AND 3RD FLOOR, KANAKSHREE ARCADE, JNMC ROAD, NEHRU NAGAR, BELAGAVI - 590 010.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAGHAVENDRA B. HANJER AND SRI H. R. KAMBIYAVAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: High Court of Karnataka
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI GIRISH HULAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI M.B.KANAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI P.N.HATTI, HCGP FOR R3)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR A DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE DEMAND-CUM SHOW CAUSE NOTICE BEARING NO.02/2021-22/ GST/JOINT COMMISSIONER-284/21 DATED 23.09.2021 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 74(1) OF THE CGST ACT FOR THE TAX PERIODS JULY, 2017 TO MARCH, 2018 (ANNEXURE-G) AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner has approached this Court for grant of writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the Show Cause Notice dated 23.09.2021 issued by respondent No.1 and alternatively issue the writ in the nature of writ of prohibition by restraining the respondents from levying the Goods and Services Act, 2017 (for short, ‘GST’) on un-denatured Extra Neutral Alcohol (for short, ‘ENA’) supplied by the petitioner.
1 (1997) 2 SCC 727
of his contention that the industries engaged in manufacture of rectified spirit exclusively for obtaining or manufacturing potable liquors shall be under exclusive control of the State Government and therefore, it is only the State Government which can have the say in the matter. Therefore, respondent Nos.1 and 2 were not having any authority to issue the Show Cause Notice. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the petition.
notification issued by the Central Government to levy the tax and GST. Accordingly, the Show Cause Notice was issued. The petitioner was challenged the Show Cause Notice without filing his written explanation.
2 (2019) 73 GST 211
3 MANU/UP/2425/2021
held that it is against the 7 judges Bench decision in Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd and other Vs. state of U.P and others4 . Therefore, no reliance could be placed on the decision relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner.
4 1(1980)2 SCC 441
was called upon to submit his written explanation for not making demand along with the interest. It is also stated that petitioner can seek personal hearing while filing the written explanation. It is made clear that no such written explanation was submitted nor the opportunity to have the personal hearing is sought for, by the petitioner. No reasonable explanation is given by the petitioner as to why he has not chosen to file written explanation, seeking personal hearing.
grounds and such grounds could have been raised by the petitioner in his written explanation as to why said show-cause notice could not have been issued.
“19. On the other hand, we find force in the contention of the learned senior counsel, Sri Radhakrishnan, appearing for the appellants that the High Court has committed error in entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India at the stage of show cause notices. Though there is no bar as such for entertaining the writ petitions at the stage of show cause notice, but it is settled by number of decisions of this Court, where writ petitions can be entertained at the show cause notice stage. Neither it is a case of lack of jurisdiction nor any violation of principles of natural justice is alleged so as to entertain the writ petition at the stage of notice. High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition, more so, when against the final orders appeal lies to this Court. The judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. v.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6369 WP No. 104541 of 2021
Guwahati Carbon Ltd. (supra) relied on by the learned senior counsel for the appellants also supports their case. In the aforesaid judgment, arising out of Central Excise Act, 1944, this Court has held that excise law is a complete code in order to seek redress in excise matters and held that entertaining writ petition is not proper where alternative remedy under statute is available. When there is a serious dispute with regard to classification of service, the respondents ought to have responded to the show cause notices by placing material in support of their stand but at the same time, there is no reason to approach the High Court questioning the very show cause notices. Further, as held by the High Court, it cannot be said that even from the contents of show cause notices there are no factual disputes. Further, the judgment of this Court in the case of Malladi Drugs & Pharma Ltd. v. Union of India, relied on by the learned senior counsel for the appellants also supports their case where this Court has upheld the judgment of the High Court which refused to interfere at show cause notice stage.”
upon the practice of approaching this Court on issuance of show-cause notice, without giving written explanation to enable the authority to consider his defence and to pass appropriate orders. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has rushed to this court to challenge the show-cause notice without availing the opportunity given to him to submit his written
explanation. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The writ petition is dismissed.
SD/JUDGE
AC,MBS/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging a GST show-cause notice under Section 74(1) CGST Act is maintainable without first submitting a written explanation to the authority?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bihar Distillery and another Vs. Union of India and othersDistinguished¶14
(1997) 2 SCC 727 · Who else cites this
Union of India Vs Coastal Container Transporters Associations and othersRelied on¶14
(2019) 73 GST 211
Jain Distillery Private Limited Vs. State of U.P. and othersRelied on
MANU/UP/2425/2021
Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd and other Vs. State of U.P and othersReferred
1(1980)2 SCC 441 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
M/S. Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd., represented by its Sr. General Manager (Texation), Sri. Rahul Patil
The Joint Commissioner, Central GST and Central Excise
The Union of India, represented by its Finance Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue
The State of Karnataka, represented by its Finance Secretary
M.G. Uma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
