Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2019 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 654 - HC - GSTLevy of GST - trading margins on sale of REC scrips and intermediaries in the transaction - the present Petitioner had earlier filed a petition seeking the same relief but withdrawn - Held that - With the counsel on both occasions being the same, and being fully aware of the facts, it was imperative for the Petitioner to have made a full and correct disclosure of all the material facts concerning the filing of the earlier petition by the same Petitioner seeking the same relief. That not having been done, the Court dismisses the present petition with cost of ₹ 1,00,000/- which would be paid by the Petitioner to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee ( DHCLSC ) on or before 30th April 2019 and placing on record the proof of payment of such costs. The Registry will place this petition before the Court for directions in the event the costs as directed are not deposited by the Petitioner within the time stipulated.
Issues:
Challenge to Circular on GST levy on sale of REC scrips; Disclosure of previous petition and withdrawal; Incorrect statement in present petition; Imposition of costs for non-disclosure. Analysis: The writ petition challenged Circulars seeking to levy GST on sale of REC scrips. The petitioner also sought the formation of a High-Level Committee and prospective effect to a specific provision. However, it was revealed that a previous petition seeking the same relief was withdrawn due to locus standi issues. The present petition failed to disclose this fact accurately, leading to the dismissal of the petition with costs imposed on the petitioner. The court emphasized the importance of full and correct disclosure of material facts by the petitioner. The petitioner's counsel explained the non-disclosure as inadvertent due to not having a copy of the order permitting withdrawal of the previous petition. The court found this explanation unsatisfactory, noting that the counsel was aware of the facts and should have made a full disclosure. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and costs of ?1,00,000 were imposed on the petitioner. The court directed the petitioner to pay the costs to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee by a specified date and provide proof of payment. In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition due to the petitioner's failure to disclose the previous petition accurately. The non-disclosure of material facts led to the imposition of costs on the petitioner. The judgment highlighted the importance of transparency and full disclosure in legal proceedings to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.
|