Case Law Details
St. Jude Medical India Private Limited Vs Union of India & Ors. (Gujarat High Court)
Gujarat High Court has disposed of a petition filed by St. Jude Medical India Private Limited against the Union of India and other respondents. The case, argued by advocate Bharat Raichandani on behalf of advocate Rithik Jain for the petitioner, centered on objections raised in an audit report.
During the proceedings, the court was informed that, according to an affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondents on January 28, 2025, all audit paragraphs except Paragraph No. 6 had been closed. Advocate Raichandani contended that Paragraph No. 6, which concerned the alleged non-production of documents by St. Jude Medical during the audit, was unfounded as the company had submitted all necessary documentation.
It was further brought to the court’s attention that the Office of the Assistant Commissioner of GST had communicated with the Senior Audit Officer GSTA (HU) Director General of Audit (Central) via a letter dated May 30, 2024, providing responses to the pending paragraphs of LAR No. 101-2023-24 and requesting that Paragraph No. 6 be dropped.
However, advocate Raichandani noted that Paragraph No. 6 appeared to remain pending. This was indicated in a letter dated May 30, 2024, filed on June 5, 2024, by the respondents regarding the status of LAR No. 101, which stated that records received from the Department were under examination and that Paragraph No. 6 had been included in the CAG draft report, with the final report from the CAG Headquarters awaited. Despite this, the primary grievance of the petitioner concerning Paragraphs No. 1 to 5 of LAR No. 101 had been resolved and accepted by the respondents in their affidavit-in-reply dated January 28, 2025. Considering that the majority of the audit objections had been addressed, the court concluded that keeping the petition pending would serve no further purpose and accordingly disposed of the matter. The notice issued in the case was also discharged.
The matter was argued by Ld. counsel Bharat Raichandani along with Advocate Rithik Jain.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Bharat Raichandani appearing for learned advocate Mr.Rithik Jain for the petitioner.
2. Learned advocate Mr. Bharat Raichandani for the petitioner submitted that as per the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondents which was affirmed on 28th January, 2025 all the audit paragraphs except Paragraph No.6 have been closed. It was pointed out that Paragraph No.6 refers to the non-production of the documents by the petitioner during the audit. It was submitted that the petitioner has submitted all the documents as required by the audit party. It was also pointed out that the Office of the Assistant Commissioner of GST by letter dated 30th May, 2024 addressed to the Senior Audit Officer GSTA (HU) Director General of Audit (Central) has provided replies to the pending paragraphs of LAR No.101-2023-24 and so far as the paragraph No.6 is concerned, it was requested to drop.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Bharat Raichandani however submitted that, it appears that paragraph No.6 is not dropped in view of the observations made by the respondents in the letter dated 30th May, 2024 filed on 5th June, 2024 regarding current status of LAR No.101 as the record to the effect that the record received from the Department are being examined and the said paragraph No.6 was included in the CAG draft report and the final report of the CAG Headquarter was awaited. It was further submitted that the main grievance of the petitioner, so far as paragraph No.1 to 5 of the LAR No. 101 is concerned, the same are closed. The same has been accepted by the respondents in their affidavit-in-reply dated 28th January, 2025. Therefore, no purpose would be served by keeping this petition pending.
4. In view of the above submissions, this petition stands disposed of. Notice is discharged.
Author Bio
