Facts of the Case

The petitioner, M/s. Swastik Steel Corporation, filed a writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution before the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging a notice dated 04.09.2023 in Form GST DRC-01 and a show cause notice of the same date issued under Section 74 of the Haryana GST Act, 2017. The matter came up before a Division Bench on 18.10.2023. It was not disputed that the petitioner had already filed its response to both notices before approaching the Court.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a writ petition challenging a Form GST DRC-01 intimation and a Section 74 show cause notice is maintainable once the petitioner has already filed its response to those notices.
  2. Whether the writ petition, being premature, should be entertained on merits or left for the adjudicating authority to decide after considering the petitioner's response.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The impugned Form GST DRC-01 notice and the show cause notice dated 04.09.2023 issued under Section 74 of the Haryana GST Act, 2017 were under challenge; however, on being confronted with the fact that a response had already been filed, counsel for the petitioner did not press the writ petition further.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The State, represented by the Additional Advocate General, Haryana, pointed out that the petitioner had already filed its response to the impugned notices, making the writ petition premature at that stage.

Court Order/Findings

  • Since the petitioner had already filed its response to the impugned Form GST DRC-01 and show cause notices, it was not for the writ court to go into the validity of the notices at that premature stage.
  • Faced with this position, counsel for the petitioner did not press the writ petition.
  • The writ petition was dismissed as not pressed, with no costs imposed.

Important Clarification

A writ petition challenging a Form GST DRC-01 intimation and an accompanying Section 74 show cause notice is premature, and liable to be dismissed as not pressed, where the petitioner has already filed a substantive response to those notices — such challenges are more appropriately left for adjudication by the proper officer in the first instance.

Sections Involved

  • Section 74 of the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — determination of tax not paid by reason of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression.
  • Form GST DRC-01 under the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.
  • Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 — writ jurisdiction invoked.

Decision – In Favour of

Neither party decisively, though procedurally closer to the Department. The writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on the ground of prematurity, since the petitioner had already responded to the notices, leaving the substantive Section 74 proceedings to continue before the adjudicating authority.

Related Case Laws

No directly on-point case notes are currently published on this site.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
  • Case No.: CWP-23302-2023
  • CNR: Not available
  • Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Harpreet Kaur Jeewan
  • Decision Date: 18.10.2023
  • Disposal Nature: Dismissed as not pressed

Link to Download the Order

Download the full judgment (PDF)

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.