Remanded

Durgesh Garg S/O Krishan Kumar v. Union of India

Rajasthan HC12 Jul 2024CW/6433/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The writ petitions challenge the dismissal of a rectification application by the Tribunal. The Court held that penalizing the petitioner for the entire bogus demand, when their actual supply was limited, was erroneous. The matter was remitted to the Assistant Commissioner to decide the quantum of demand and penalty vis-a-vis the petitioner alone.

What did the court decide?

Remitted to the Assistant Commissioner for limited purpose of deciding the issue of quantum of demand and penalty vis-a-vis the petitioner.

Durgesh Garg S/O Krishan Kumar Vs Union of India — Rajasthan HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:29186-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6418/2024

¶4

M/s Waheguru Tradelink, Through Its Partner Durgesh Garg S/o Krishan Kumar 15, Ashiyana Village, Bhiwadi Rajasthan-301019

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Union Of India, Through, Commissioner Of Central Excise, And Cgst, Ncrb, Statue Circle, Jaipur-I.

¶8

Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods And Service Tax, Division-B, A-Block, Surya Nagar, Alwar-301001

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

Connected With

¶11

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6433/2024

¶12

Durgesh Garg S/o Krishan Kumar, Director Of M/s Ambey Ispat Pvt. Ltd., 15, Ashiyana Village, Bhiwadi, Rajasthan - 301019

¶13

----Petitioner

¶14

Versus

¶15

Union Of India, Through Commissioner Of Central Excise And Cgst, Ncrb, Statue Circle, Jaipur-I.

¶16

Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods And Service Tax, Division-B, A Block, Surya Nagar, Alwar-301001.

¶17

----Respondents

¶18

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6507/2024

¶19

Durgesh Garg S/o Krishan Kumar, Partner Of M/s Waheguru Tradelink 15, Ashiyana Village, Bhiwadi Rajasthan - 301019.

¶20

----Petitioner

¶21

Versus

¶22

Union Of India, Through Commissioner Of Central Excise And Cgst, Ncrb, Statue Circle, Jaipur- I.

¶23

Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods And Service Tax, Division - B, A Block, Surya Nagar, Alwar - 301001.

¶24

----Respondents

¶25

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6509/2024

¶26

M/s Ambey Ispat Pvt. Limited, 15, Ashiyana Village, Bhiwadi Rajasthan - 301019, Through Director Durgesh Garg S/o Krishan

¶27

[2024:RJ-JP:29186-DB] (2 of 4)

[CW-6418/2024]

Kumar.

----Petitioner

Versus

Union Of India, Through Commissioner Of Central Excise, And Cgst, Ncrb, Statue Circle, Jaipur -I.

¶33

Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods And Service Tax, Division - B, A Block, Surya Nagar, Alwar - 301001.

¶34

----Respondents

¶35

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.K. Kasliwal with Mr. Priyesh Kasliwal

¶36

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kinshuk Jain with Mr. Saurabh Jain

¶37

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶38

Order

¶39

12/07/2024

¶40

AVNEESH JHINGAN, J (ORAL):-

¶41

These petitions are being disposed of by this common order as the facts and issues involved are similar. For convenience, the facts are being taken from D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6418/2024.

¶42

This petition is filed aggrieved of dismissal of the rectification application vide order dated 01.12.2023 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘Tribunal’).

¶43

The brief facts are that the petitioner during the period from November, 2014 to April, 2015 supplied material to M/s Tarun Alloys Ltd. Unit-II, Bhiwadi, Rajasthan (for short ‘M/s Tarun Alloys’). The proceedings were initiated by the Excise Department setting up a case that M/s Tarun Alloys was not entitled to CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 22,13,137/- claimed on the basis of invoices issued by three parties including the petitioner. The

¶44

[2024:RJ-JP:29186-DB]

¶45

[CW-6418/2024]

¶46

(3 of 4)

¶47

transactions were held to be bogus and penalty equivalent to the demand created was imposed on all the parties including the petitioner. Aggrieved of the adjudicating order, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was dismissed for non-compliance of requisite pre-deposit of the entire amount. The petitioner failed before the Tribunal on the same ground and thereafter, after dismissal of the rectification application, the present petition is filed.

¶48

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the CENVAT credit disallowed to M/s Tarun Alloys vis-a-vis the petitioner was to the tune of supply made of Rs. 3,48,126/-. The contention is that the demand vis-a-vis the petitioner should have been created for the supplies made to the tune of Rs. 3,48,126/-.

¶49

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the appeal of the petitioner was not entertained for non-compliance of predeposit.

¶50

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings.

¶51

It is undisputed fact that CENVAT credit dis-allowed to M/s Tarun Alloys qua the supplies made by the petitioner, was to the tune of Rs. 3,48,126/-. The Adjudicating Officer vide order dated 31.03.2022 confirmed the demand of CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 22,13,137/- for the supplies made by M/s A.I. Metals Private Limited, M/s Ambay Ispat Pvt. Ltd. and the petitioner. The penalty upon all the three suppliers was imposed equivalent to the demand, where as the suppliers could have been penalized only qua the supplies made by them. In such circumstances, the matter is remitted back to the Assistant

¶52

[2024:RJ-JP:29186-DB]

¶53

[CW-6418/2024]

¶54

(4 of 4)

¶55

Commissioner for a limited purpose of deciding the issue of quantum of demand, including penalty vis-a-vis the petitioner. 8. In order to avoid further delay, let the parties appear personally or through representative before the respondent No.2 on 20.08.2024 at 11:00 am.

¶56

Needless to say that the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail remedies in accordance with law for redressal of surviving grievance, if any, after the decision by respondent No.2. 10. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.

¶57

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J

¶58

(AVNEESH JHINGAN),J

¶59

Simple Kumawat /01-04

¶60

Whether Reportable: Yes

Durgesh Garg S/O Krishan Kumar v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Durgesh Garg S/O Krishan Kumar 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 Indo Alusys Industries Limited Vs Chief Commissioner

Pramod Kotahwala, S/O G.D. Kotahwala Vs Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Dgit (Investigation)

M/S Balaji Shipping Vs Union of India

M/S Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs Commissioner, Cgst

Sourabh Bairathi S/O Shri Mahesh Chandra Bairathi Vs Income Tax Officer

Bhauri Lal Vs Harinarayan Sharma