2023 (12) TMI 734 - HC - GST

Validity of notice initiated under Rule 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - seeking for stay of all the further proceedings pursuant to the summons issued on 22.11.2019 - HELD THAT - What is apparent is that the notice and the summons were issued calling upon the petitioner to enter appearance and to produce cogent, relevant documents as has been sought by the authorities concerned. Thus, no strong case has been made out by the petitioner calling for interdiction of the notice and summons under challenge. The petitioner is at liberty to enter appearance before the authorities concerned by submitting their detailed reply in addition to any reply if they have already made in the past. The authorities concerned thereafter in turn is expected to proceed further in accordance with law after due consideration of the contents of the reply and documents which the petitioner shall be furnishing by way of their response. It is directed that considering the fact when the entire country is going into the digital world and the Competition Commission of India also having its sitting only at New Delhi, it cannot be expected that every person can afford attending the hearing at New Delhi on all the dates of hearing. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
The judgment involves a challenge to a notice issued under Rule 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, and a summons by the Directorate General of Anti-Profiteering, now pursued by the Competition Commission of India.

Summary:
The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus challenging the notice and summons issued under the CGST Act, 2017. The notice alleged that the petitioner did not pass on the benefit of a tax reduction to consumers, contravening Section 71 of the Act. The petitioner was required to provide an explanation and appear before authorities, which the petitioner argued was challenging due to fixed ticket prices set by the government and variations in cinema categories.

The respondent contended that the petitioner's defenses could be raised in their response to the notice and summons, and if a convincing reply was provided, proceedings could be dropped. The petitioner also raised concerns about the physical appearance requirement in New Delhi, causing inconvenience and economic burden. The Court noted that the notice and summons called for the petitioner to appear and produce relevant documents, citing Supreme Court precedents that a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice.

The Court held that the petitioner had not made a strong case for challenging the notice and summons, directing them to enter appearance and submit a detailed reply. It was also directed that the Competition Commission of India should allow virtual appearances to reduce economic hardship. The Writ Petitions were disposed of with no order as to costs, and any pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.