High CourtsSingle Bench(2021) 03 UK CK 0073

Resizone Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. vs Director General Of Anti Profiteering, Taxes And Customs Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance And Others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 8 March 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 155 Of 2021

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

14 paragraphs · 267 words

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

1.

Petitioner is a Builder, against whom a complaint was made by a home buyer that he has not passed on the benefit of reduction of tax rate under

the G.S.T. Regime. Based on the said complaint, summon has been issued against the petitioner on 12.01.2021 by Additional Assistant Director,

Directorate General of Anti-Profiteering, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi. The said notice has been issued under Section 70

of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Rule 132 of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 and petitioner has been asked to

produce the documents, as indicated in the summon, before the Directorate General of Anti-Profiteering.

2.

It is settled position in law that no writ petition is maintainable against a show cause notice or summons.

3.

Since no order, adversely affecting the interest of the petitioner, has been passed against him, therefore, the writ petition is premature. Accordingly,

the writ petition is dismissed.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that petitioner has submitted his reply in response to the earlier summons issued to him by the

respondent authorities, therefore, petitioner has not responded to the impugned summon dated 12.01.2021.

5.

Be that as it may, if petitioner has responded to similar summons earlier issued to him by the respondent authority, then the respondent authority

shall consider the reply submitted by the petitioner to such summons and take appropriate decision, in accordance with law, as early as possible,

preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the order.