Shiv Shakti Trading Co. Vs State of Haryana And Others (Panjab Haryana high court)
The Punjab and Haryana High Court disposed of the petitions after holding that the controversy raised stood concluded by the Division Bench judgment of the Jharkhand High Court in Usha Martin Limited Vs. Additional Commissioner, Central GST and Excise, Jamshedpur and others, [2024] 124 GSTR 396 (Jharkhand). The Court noted that the said judgment had been followed in Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. State of Jharkhand & ors., 2025 SCC OnLine Jhar 436, and that the Special Leave Petition against the Usha Martin judgment had been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It also recorded that the SLP against the Steel Authority of India judgment had likewise been dismissed by the Supreme Court.
Earlier, on 07.2026, counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgments in Usha Martin Limited and Steel Authority of India Limited, submitting that the present matters could also be disposed of on the same terms. The respondents sought time to examine the issue, following which the matters were adjourned.
After hearing the parties, the High Court found that the issues involved had already been adjudicated by the Jharkhand High Court in Usha Martin Limited, which was subsequently followed in Steel Authority of India Limited. Expressing respectful agreement with the view taken in those decisions, the Court observed that the Steel Authority of India judgment had also been tested before the Supreme Court by the State of Jharkhand, where the SLP had been dismissed.
In view of the settled position, the High Court held that the present petitions deserved to be allowed for the reasons recorded in Usha Martin Limited. It held that the initiation of proceedings under Sections 73 and 74 of the Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, in respect of credit availed under the erstwhile Haryana Value Added Tax Act, could not be adjudicated.
The Court clarified that the liberty extended to the Revenue in paragraph 23 of the Usha Martin Limited judgment would remain protected in accordance with law. The petitions were accordingly disposed of, and all pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.
Cases Discussed
- Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. State of Jharkhand & ors. (Jharkhand High Court), 2025 SCC OnLine Jhar 436
- Usha Martin Limited Vs. Additional Commissioner, Central GST and Excise, Jamshedpur and others (Jharkhand High Court), [2024] 124 GSTR 396 (Jharkhand)
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
1. Controversy raised in the present petitions stands concluded by the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court in Usha Martin Limited Vs. Additional Commissioner, Central GST and Excise, Jamshedpur and others, [2024] 124 GSTR 396 (Jharkhand), against which Special Leave Petition (SLP) has also been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 04.2026.
2. On 07.2026, the following order was passed:-
“The counsel for the petitioner(s) placed reliance upon judgment of Jharkhand High Court in Usha Martin Limited Vs. Additional Commissioner, Central GST and Excise, Jamshedpur and others, [2024] 124 GSTR 396 (Jharkhand) which is followed in Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. State of Jharkhand & ors. 2025 SCC OnLine Jhar 436, against which the SLP(C) Diary No.18250/2026 has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 17.04.2026. It is therefore, submitted that this matter can also be disposed of in the same terms.
Learned counsel for the respondents-authorities seeks short indulgence to examine the matter.
Put up 22.07.2026.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected cases.”
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at substantial We find that the issues raised in the present matter have already been adjudicated upon by the Jharkhand High Court in ‘Usha Martin Limited Vs. Additional Commissioner, Central GST and Excise, Jamshedpur and others’, [2024] 124 GSTR 396 (Jharkhand). The said judgment has been followed by a subsequent Bench in ‘Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. State of Jharkhand & ors’. 2025 SCC OnLine Jhar 436. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken therein by the Court.
4.The judgment in Steel Authority of India Ltd. (supra) was tested before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the State of Jharkhand, wherein the SLP has been also dismissed.
5. Once that be the position, we are of the view that the present petitions also deserve to be allowed for the reasons recorded in Usha Martin Limited (supra). The initiation of proceedings under Sections 73 and 74 of the Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, in respect of credits avail in the erstwhile Haryana Value Added Tax (VAT) Act, cannot be adjudicated. It goes without saying that the liberty extended to the Revenue in para 23 of the judgment in Usha Martin Limited (supra) would remain protected in accordance with law.
6. These petitions are accordingly disposed of.
7. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed
