W.P.(C)/16547/2023 of M/S. MALIK ENTERPRISES Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Court: Delhi High Court
Decision date: 2024-08-23
Case number: 16547/2023

Parties

+ W.P.(C) 16547/2023 M/S. MALIK ENTERPRISES (PETITIONER)
UNION OF INDIA & ORS (RESPONDENT)

Cites (1)

W.P.(C)/3844/2021 of RASHI PERIPHERALS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS (2021)

Statutes cited (4)

constitution of india, article-14 (1950)
constitution of india, article-19(1) (1950)
constitution of india, article-300a (1950)
constitution of india (1950)

Full text

solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus

Show all Header

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) 16547/2023M/S. MALIK ENTERPRISES.....PetitionerM/S. MALIK ENTERPRISES.....Petitioner

.....Petitioner

Through:Mr. Sumit K. Batra, Mr. ManishKhurana, Ms. Priyanka Jindal and Mr.Nikhin Alex, Advs.Khurana, Ms. Priyanka Jindal and Mr.Nikhin Alex, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS......Respondents

Through:Mr. Ajay Jain, SPC along with Mr.Bijay Lakshmi, Mr. M.N. Mishra, Mr.Krishna Sharma and Ms. Shreya Jain,Advs. for R-1.Bijay Lakshmi, Mr. M.N. Mishra, Mr.Krishna Sharma and Ms. Shreya Jain,Advs. for R-1.

Mr. Aditya Singla, SSC, CBIC alongwith Mr. Ritwik Saha, Mr. SarthakMittalandMr.VaibhavChechi,Advs.with Mr. Ritwik Saha, Mr. SarthakMittalandMr.VaibhavChechi,Advs.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTAO R R23.08.2024

1.The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, challenging theconstitutional validity of Section 16(4) of the Central Goods and ServicesTax Act, 2017 (hereafter the CGST Act)/ Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act,2017 (hereafter the DGST Act). The petitioner claims that the same isviolative of Article 14, Article 19(1) (g) and Article 300A of theConstitution of India.

2.The petitioner also impugns Show Cause Notice dated 22.11.2023(hereafter the impugned SCN) calling upon the petitioner to show cause as towhy the Input Tax Credit claimed should not be recovered from the

petitioner under Section 73(1) of CGST Act/DGST Act.

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to theimpugned SCN, an order dated 16.04.2024 under Section 73 CGSTAct/DGST Act has been passed confirming the demand as set out in theimpugned SCN.

4.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in view ofthe introduction of sub-section 5 of Section 16 of the CGST Act/DGST Actby virtue of Finance (No.2) Act, 2024, the petitioner’s grievance with regardto the impugned SCN would be addressed if the matter is remanded to theconcerned authority to re-adjudicate the impugned SCN once again in thelight of introduction of sub-section 5 of Section 16 by Finance (No.2) Act,2024.

5.The learned counsel for petitioner unequivocally states that thepetitioner is not pressing the challenge to the constitutional validity ofSection 16(4) of CGST Act/DGST Act.

6.Mr. Singla, learned counsel for the respondent no.2, states that therespondent has no objection if the order dated 16.04.2024 is set aside and thematter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to re-adjudicate theimpugned SCN in light of the statutory amendments introduced by Finance(No.2) Act, 2024.

7.In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of by settingaside the order dated 16.04.2024, passed pursuant to the impugned SCN.

8.The matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to re-adjudicatethe impugned SCN in light of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2024.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

AUGUST 23, 2024/cl

SACHIN DATTA, J