Case Law Details
Hindustan Construction Company Limited vs Union of India and others (Himachal Pradesh High Court)
Introduction: The Himachal Pradesh High Court issues notice and grants a stay of recovery proceedings in the case of Hindustan Construction Company Limited vs Union of India. The court acknowledges the mandatory nature of ASMT 10 under Rule 99 of the CGST Rules and references a previous order by the Gauhati High Court in PepsiCo’s case.
The Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh, issues notice and grants stay of recovery proceedings against the said order. It prima facie, agrees with the contention that ASMT 10 is mandatory under Rule 99 of the CGST Rules and no show cause notice (Form DRC 01) can be issued without it. It relies on earlier order passed by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in PepsiCo’s case.
The petitioner undertakes work contracts for State Government projects. It is registered and files GST returns. Scrutiny proceedings were initiated under section 61 of the CGST Act, 2017. The ASMT 10 notice was issued pointing out certain discrepancies. Show cause notice was issued on the said basis. However, another show cause notice came to be issued on issue not covered by ASMT 10. No pre-scn in Form DRC-01A was issued. Order came to be passed in such show cause notice. This order was challenged in writ petition.
The Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh, issues notice and grants stay of recovery proceedings against the said order. It prima facie, agrees with the contention that ASMT 10 is mandatory under Rule 99 of the CGST Rules and no show cause notice (Form DRC 01) can be issued without it. It relies on earlier order passed by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in PepsiCo’s case.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
This High Caurt Order is also mandtory in delhi