9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 1442X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x Act, 2017 (for short 'the CGST Act, 2017')/the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short 'the RGST Act, 2017'), they are to be treated neither supply of goods, nor supply of services and, therefore, fall outside the purview of goods and services tax (GST) under the CGST Act, 2017 or the RGST Act, 2017. The case of the petitioner proceeds on assertion of facts that the petitioner purchased goods from overseas suppliers for the purposes of selling in India, before clearance of the goods from customs for home consumption, to other parties by way of endorsement of documents of titled goods as well as issuance of invoices during financial years 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22. It is contended that such transactions, involving sale of goods undertaken in the course of import, are governed by the provisions contained in Article 269A of the Constitution of India and are, therefore, subject to the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017(for short 'the IGST Act, 2017') rather than the CGST Act, 2017/the RGST Act, 2017. The transactions for supply of goods before passing the custom frontiers of India are treated as transactions in the course of import into the territory of Indi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g to e-invoices, the applicability for the requirement of issuance of e-invoices would be applicable from the next financial year in which turnover was achieved. The petitioner duly responded to the notices by filing Form GST-DRC-01A-Part-B dated 14.11.2022, but without applying its mind, the authority is proceeding in the matter and, therefore, it is the case of the petitioner that issuance of impugned demand notices/show cause notices for three financial years are without jurisdiction and authority of law. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would argue that the entire case of the petitioner proceeds on a factual assertion that the transaction in question, according to the material collected during search and survey operations carried out in the principal place of business of the petitioner on 26.02.2022, is not 'High Sea Sale'. Upon inspection of the invoices of the petitioner and Import General Manifest (IGM Portal), it was found that the supply of goods by the petitioner was not 'High Sea Sale' rather the petitioner sold the goods after the same reached within the Indian territory and after the information of imported goods was uploaded on IGM Protal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere at the stage of issuance of the impugned show cause notices. 9. The scope of interference in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, against show cause notices, is limited. Though there is no bar as such for entertaining the writ petition at the stage of show cause notice, but it has been settled in catena of decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as also this Court as to when writ petition can be entertained at stage of issuance of the show cause notice. 10. In the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Coastal Container Transporters Association and Others, (2019) 20 SCC 446, while dealing with an issue with regard to dispute regarding classification of taxable services, their Lordships in the Hon'ble Supreme Court cautioned against exercise of writ jurisdiction as below: "30. On the other hand, we find force in the contention of the learned Senior Counsel, Shri Radhakrishnan, appearing for the appellants that the High Court has committed error in entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at the stage of show-cause notices. Though there is no bar as such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ormal rule. However, the said rule is not without exceptions. Where a show-cause notice is issued either without jurisdiction or in an abuse of process of law, certainly in that case, the writ court would not hesitate to interfere even at the stage of issuance of show cause-notice. The interference at the show-cause notice stage should be rare and not in a routine manner. Mere assertion by the writ petitioner that notice was without jurisdiction and/or abuse of process of law would not suffice. It should be prima facie established to be so. Where factual adjudication would be necessary, interference is ruled out." The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Another Versus Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 Supreme Court Cases 28 held as below:- 13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge-sheet or show cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh (1996) 1 SCC 327, Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse (2004) 3 SCC 440, Ulagappa v. Divisional Commr., Mysore 2001 (10) SCC 639, State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma (1987) 2 SCC 179, etc. 14. The reason why ordi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
