Case Details: Shree Kishna Chemicals Versus Union of India (2025) 28 Centax 105 (M.P.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Vivek Rusia & Gajendra Singh, JJ.
- Shri L.C. Patne, Adv. for the Petitioner.
- Shri Prasanna Prasad, Adv. for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, a registered assessee under the CGST Act, challenged a show-cause notice issued under Section 74 for alleged fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) without actual receipt of goods. The notice was based on intelligence gathered by CGST authorities, indicating that the petitioner and eleven others were involved in transactions using fake invoices. The petitioner also contested the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act, citing its potential inconsistency with Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 20 of the Constitution. Reliance was placed on On Quest Merchandising India Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of NCT Delhi & Ors., 2017 SCC Online Del 11286, where a similar provision under the DVAT Act, 2004, was declared unconstitutional. The petitioner asserted that Section 16(2)(c) should be reconsidered in light of this precedent.
High Court Held
The Hon’ble High Court held that the petitioner was required to present its defence and supporting documents before the competent authority in the Section 74 inquiry rather than seeking constitutional invalidation. It noted that the High Courts of Patna in Gobinda Construction & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [CWC No. 9108 of 2021] and Kerala in M. Trade Links v. Union of India & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine Ker 2744, had already upheld the validity of Section 16(2)(c). The Court emphasized that judicial review cannot override statutory mechanisms and dismissed the writ petition, affirming the provision’s constitutional validity and the legality of the show-cause notice.
List of Cases Cited
- Gobinda Construction v. Union of India — [CWC No. 9108 of 2021] — Relied on
- M.Trade Links v. Union of India — 2024 SCC OnLine Ker 2744 — Relied on
