Partly allowed

M/S. Skylark Infra Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India

Rajasthan HC5 Nov 2024CW/60/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In connected writ petitions, the Rajasthan High Court disposed of challenges regarding GST tax classification and vires provisions. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit the interim refunded IGST amount with the State. It indicated that vires challenges require adjudication of facts by the GST Tribunal and ordered the filing of an appeal once constituted.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to deposit Rs. 1,17,59,177/- with State; refund of IGST challenge kept open for Tribunal; recovery of balance stayed if pre-deposit complied; appeal to file upon Tribunal constitut

M/S. Skylark Infra Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of… — GST and Indirect Tax | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:45749-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 60/2023

¶4

M/s. Skylark Infra Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Having Its Registerd Office At H.no.-1/84, First Floor Sadar Bazar, Delhi Cantt New Delhi West Delhi 110010 India Through Its Authorised Representative Navdeep Pratap Singh S/o Sh. Tara Chand Rao, R/o 1577Bp, Near Police Guest House, Sector -23, Cartarpuri Alias Daulatpur, Nasirabad, Gurgaon, Haryana - 122017.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Union Of India, Through Chief Commissioner, Central Goods And Service Tax, Jaipur Zone, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, C Scheme, Jaipur - 302005

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Joint Secretary (Tax), Finance Department (Tax Division), Secretarait, Jaipur - 302001

¶9

Joint Commissioner, State Tax, Anti-Evasion, Circle-Iii, Jaipur At Kar Bhavan, Jaipur.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

Connected With

¶12

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 392/2023

¶13

M/s Skylark Infra Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Having Its Registerd Office At H.no.-1/84, First Floor Sadar Bazar, Delhi Cantt New Delhi West Delhi 110010 India Through Its Authorised Representative Navdeep Pratap Singh S/o Sh Tarachand Rao, 1577Bp, Near Police Guest House, Sector-23, Cartarpuri Alias Daulatpur, Nasirabad, Gurgaon, Haryana -122017.

¶14

----Petitioner

¶15

Versus

¶16

Union Of India, Through Chief Commissioner, Central Goods And Service Tax, Jaipur Zone, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, C Scheme, Jaipur302005.

¶17

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Joint Secretary (Tax), Finance Department (Tax Division), Secretarait, Jaipur302001

¶18

Joint Commissioner, State Tax, Anti-Evasion, Circle-Iii,

¶19

(2 of 5)

¶20

[2024:RJ-JP:45749-DB]

¶21

[CW-60/2023]

¶22

Jaipur At Kar Bhavan, Jaipur.

¶23

----Respondents

¶24

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 393/2023

----Petitioner

Versus

Union Of India, Through Chief Commissioner, Central Goods And Service Tax, Jaipur Zone, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, C Scheme, Jaipur302005.

¶29

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Joint Secretary (Tax), Finance Department (Tax Division), Secretarait, Jaipur302001

¶30

Joint Commissioner, State Tax, Anti-Evasion, Circle-Iii, Jaipur At Kar Bhavan, Jaipur.

¶31

----Respondents

¶32

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Kothari For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Advocate General with Ms. Harshita Thakral, Ms. Dhriti Laddha, Mr. Tanay Goyal. Mr. Kinshuk Jain Mr. Devesh Yadav

¶33

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Order

¶34

05/11/2024 AVNEESH JHINGAN,J (Oral)

¶35

These petitions are being decided by this order as the issue and facts involved are similar. For convenience, the facts are being taken from DBCWP No.60/2023.

¶36

[2024:RJ-JP:45749-DB]

¶37

[CW-60/2023]

¶38

(3 of 5)

¶39

This petition is filed seeking quashing of order dated 23.09.2022 passed by the Appellate Authority, State Tax, Jaipur rejecting the appeal of the petitioner for assessment year 201718.

¶40

The relevant facts are that the petitioner claimed supplies made to be inter-state supplies and exigible to Integrated Goods and Services Tax (hereinafter referred to as 'IGST'). The respondent No. 3 treated supplies to be intra-state and levied CGST and SGST.

¶41

The grievance raised in this petition is that the petitioner had already deposited tax under the IGST Act. The challenge in the present petition is also to the Vires of Section 19(1) of IGST Act and Section 77(1) of CGST and RGST Act of 2017.

¶42

On 17.04.2023, following order was passed:"These matters come up for consideration insofar as compliance of interim order dated 05.01.2023 is concerned.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this Court had directed the petitioner to deposit balance 65% of CGST and RGST within a period of three months subject to the condition of refund of the IGST within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the application. He would submit that though application for refund has already been made, out of Rs.4.02 crores deposited towards IGST, only Rs.1,17,59,177/have been refunded which includes both cash as well as credit component. Therefore, in these circumstances, the petitioner may not be required at this stage to deposit 65% of CGST and RGST within the time stipulated by the Court.

¶44

Learned counsel for Union of India submits that as far as Union of India is concerned, the amount deposited with it has been refunded and rest of the

¶45

(4 of 5)

¶46

[2024:RJ-JP:45749-DB]

¶47

[CW-60/2023]

¶48

amount is required to be refunded by the GST Department at Delhi.

¶49

Taking into consideration the submission of learned counsel for the parties, we direct the petitioner to deposit refund amount of Rs. 1,17,59,177/- with the State under RGST within a period of one month.

¶50

Reply of the respondents may be filed within four weeks and the case be listed after four weeks. Application No. 01/2023 is, accordingly, disposed off."

¶51

Learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions submits that the refund received from Union of India with regard to IGST has been deposited with the Goods & Service Tax Authorities. The contention is that with the deposit of the amount, the prerequisite of pre-deposit for filing an appeal before Tribunal stands complied. Further that apart from this other amount has already been deposited.

¶52

Considering determination of the factual aspects is required to be done at first instance before the vires of the provisions can be gone into, the petition is disposed of relegating the petitioner to the remedy of appeal before the GST Tribunal.

¶53

It is clarified that the issue of challenge to the vires is kept open.

¶54

No further proceedings for recovery of the balance amount shall be taken against the petitioner in case of the authorities being satisfied that the condition of pre-deposit for filing the appeal has been complied with. The petitioner shall also deposit the refunded amount received on these transactions under IGST.

¶55

The GST Tribunal has not been constituted till date, the petitioner shall file an appeal within three months from the date of

¶56

[2024:RJ-JP:45749-DB]

¶57

[CW-60/2023]

¶58

(5 of 5)

¶59

constitution of the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall consider the appeal on merits after being satisfied that the condition of pre-deposit has been complied with.

¶60

(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J

¶61

(AVNEESH JHINGAN),J

¶62

Chandan/Yogesh/72 to 74

¶63

Whether Reportable: Yes / No

M/S. Skylark Infra Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Skylark Infra Engineering Pvt. Ltd. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Ajay Spycon Housing Developers Vs State of Rajasthan

Anil Modi Proprietor of Modi Associates Vs Additional Commissioner (Appeals)

B and B Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. Vs Director of Income Tax

M/S Skylark Infra Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India

M/S Skylark Infra Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India

M/S Vivek Pharmachem India Ltd. Vs Union of India