Grainotch Industries Ltd Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court)
The Bombay High Court addressed a petition filed by Grainotch Industries Ltd. challenging a GST order issued by respondent No. 3. The order demanded a payment of Rs. 71,23,02,689/- along with an equal amount as penalty, based on a consolidated notice covering the period from 2017 to 2021. The petitioner argued that the consolidated notice was improper and that the imposition amounted to double taxation. Further, they contended that the product in question, Extra Neutral Alcohol (ENA), used for industrial purposes, was not subject to GST, citing a Supreme Court ruling in State of U.P. and others vs. M/s. Lalta Prasad Vaish and sons.
Respondent No. 3 raised an objection, stating that the petitioner should pursue the alternate remedy available under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. However, the petitioner argued that the issues raised, including the legality of the consolidated notice and the applicability of GST on ENA, went to the root of jurisdiction, making a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India appropriate. The Bombay High Court, after considering the petitioner’s arguments and the Supreme Court precedent, found a prima facie case to entertain the writ petition. To allow respondent No. 3 to respond to the petitioner’s arguments and to address the jurisdictional issue, the court granted them time. In the interim, the court stayed the impugned GST order. The court issued notices to the respondents, setting a return date and instructed the state to determine whether an affidavit-in-reply was necessary. The petition was also ordered to be tagged with another related writ petition.
