Dismissed

M/s. Gemini Coach Builders v. Union of India

Madras HC24 Jun 2022WP(MD)/13181/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of a show cause notice under Section 73 CGST Act. The Court held that since the petitioner had already received summons and the earlier notice, the mandatory procedural stage of hearing and filing reply remained, precluding judicial interference at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Certiorari for quashing of the show cause notice was dismissed.

M/s. Gemini Coach Builders Vs Union of India — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.13181 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 24.06.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.13181 of 2022 and WMP(MD) No.9367 of 2022

¶7

M/s.Gemini Coach Builders, Rep. by Partner Muniyappan, 546/B, Govindampalayam, Andankoil, Karur District

¶8

..... Petitioner

¶9

¶10

1.The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi 110 001.

¶11

The Chairman Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, North Block, New Delhi 110001

¶12

Goods and Services Tax Council, Through its Secretary, 5^th Floor, Tower II, Jeevan Bharthi Building, Janpath Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi- 110 001

¶13

1/6

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

W.P.(MD)No.13181 of 2022

¶16

The Additional Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, No.1, Williams Road, Cantonment, Tiruchirapalli 620 001.

¶17

The Superintendent of Central GST and Central Excise Karur -II, Range Karur Division No.15, Ground Floor, Gowripuram Extension, Anna Nagar, Karur- 639 002. ...Respondents

¶18

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for records relating to impugned Notice of the 4th respondent dated 29.03.2022 having File No.GEXCOM/ADJN/GST/ADC/96/2022-ADJN SCN No.

¶19

02/ADC/2022/GST, DIN.20220359XN0000313851 and quash the same

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Sukumar For Respondents : Mrs.S.Ragaventhree No.2 to 5 Junior Standing Counsel

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned notice of

¶23

the fourth respondent dated 29.03.2022 having File No.GEXCOM/ ADJN/GST/ADC/96/2022-ADJN SCN No.02/ADC/2022/GST, DIN. 20220359XN0000313851.

¶24

2/6

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

W.P.(MD)No.13181 of 2022

¶27

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was earlier issued summons on 15.11.2019, thereby calling for his explanation with regard to the 10 items listed therein. The petitioner appeared before the Superintendent of GST and Central Excise on 06.12.2019 and gave his explanation in detail. With regard to the

¶28

question No.13 in Ministry's F.No.354/17/2018-TRU dated 01.03.2018, the petitioner had given detailed explanation referring to circular No. 52/26/2018-GST dated 09.08.2018, wherein in para 2.03, it has been clearly clarified that in case of fabrication of body on chassis provided by the principal (not on account of body builder) the supply would merit classification as service and 18% GST as applicable will be charged. Thereafter, again the petitioner was issued notice under Section DRC-01A, for a short payment of Rs.11,17,33,272/-. The petitioner again given his reply on 14.03.2022. This being so, now the third notice has been issued, for which also the petitioner has given explanation that the department circular No.52/26/2018—GST has clearly clarified that GST applicable on job work is 18% only, which the petitioner has paid.

¶29

3/6

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

W.P.(MD)No.13181 of 2022

¶32

The contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 2 to 5 is that the first respondent issued summons calling the petitioner to give his receipts, produce documents and give his explanation. Thereafter, another notice was issued to the petitioner and again the petitioner appeared and given his reply on 06.12.2019, which was considered and thereafter DRC-01A notice has been issued in O.C.No.37 of 2022. The petitioner is now issued with a show cause notice under Section 73 of the CGST Act,2017. The petitioner if at all has got any objection to the show cause notice, then his objections will be heard and thereafter only the order in original can be passed. Even before passing any order, the petitioner has rushed to this Court, hence seeks dismissal of the petition.

¶33

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the

¶34

learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 5 and perused the materials available on record.

¶35

4/6

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

W.P.(MD)No.13181 of 2022

¶38

It is seen that the petitioner has not only received the show

¶39

cause notice but also earlier the petitioner was issued with summons and thereafter only DRC-01A has been issued, intimating the tax ascertained as being payable. Now, the show cause notice has been issued, for which, the petitioner has to give reply and thereafter personal hearing would be given, where he can make his submissions along with supporting documents, thereafter only order in original would be passed and it is the procedure as contemplated under law. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition.

¶40

In the result, the petition stands dismissed. No cost.

¶41

Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

¶42

24.06.2022

¶43

Index: Yes/No Internet : Yes/No aav

¶44

5/6

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

W.P.(MD)No.13181 of 2022

¶47

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

¶48

aav

¶49

W.P.(MD)No.13181 of 2022

¶50

24.06.2022

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶52

6/6

M/s. Gemini Coach Builders v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Gemini Coach Builders v. Union of India

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

M/s. Janapiriyaa Super Market Vs The Deputy Commissioner

Dharmalingam S.P Vs The State Tax Officer (District)

Janakiraman .N Vs The District Collector

Siva Cotton Mills (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Principal Secretary

Sasikumar K Vs The Joint Commissioner

Thirupathy .M Vs The Superintendent of Police