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.
The matter was argued by Ld. Counsel Bharat Raichandani
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Notice. Mr. Balram Sharma, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India and Mr. Sushant Kaprate, learned Additional Advocate General accept notice on behalf of respondent no.1 and respondents no. 2 to 4, respectively.
2) Heard Sh.Bharat Raichandani, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Sushant Kaprate, learned Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.2 to 4.
3) It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order (Annexure P-3) has been passed with regard to an issue, in respect of which, no ASMT-10 notice was issued to the petitioner, and that the ASMT-10 issued to the petitioner dealt with other aspects other than the ground on which the impugned order is passed. This is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents.
4) Similar issue appears to have been considered by the Gauhati High Court in M/s. Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and others, WP(C)/6960/2023 dt.13.12.2023 as also by this Court vide order dt.11.03.2024 in CWP No. 1793 of 2024.
5) Prima facie there appears to be non-compliance with Rule 99 of the CGST Rules, which requires service of a pre show cause notice in form ASMT-10 before issuing DRC-01 notice. Therefore, there shall be interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure P-9 (Recovery Notice), until further orders.
6) List on 05.2024.
Author Bio
This High Caurt Order is also mandtory in delhi