Trimurti Fragrances And Flavours Pvt. Ltd. And 6 Others v. Director General Of Goods And Services Tax 2 Others

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 9; GST statutory provision - Section 9A; GST statutory provision - Section 11A; GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 136

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: The challenge in this writ petition is to the Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice dated 07.06.2023 bearing No. DGGI/AZU/Gr-C/36-12/2023-24 and file No. DGGI/AZU/Gr-C/12(4) 05/2023-24 issued by the respondent No. 1 and 2 purportedly for alleged violation of the provisions of CGST Act, UPGST Act read with IGST Act further read with GST (Compensation to States) Act, 2017 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been asked to show cause as to why: Operative disposition: In view of the above the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioners to take recourse to the remedies available to them under the law. It is however, made clear that we have not adjudicated the facts and no observation made in this order may prejudice the defence that may be set up by the petitioner in the pending
• Which factual, statutory and procedural conditions controlled the requested relief?
• How did the forum apply the governing provisions to the evidence and procedural history recorded in this case?

Material facts and procedural background

2. The challenge in this writ petition is to the Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice dated 07.06.2023 bearing No. DGGI/AZU/Gr-C/36-12/2023-24 and file No. DGGI/AZU/Gr-C/12(4) 05/2023-24 issued by the respondent No. 1 and 2 purportedly for alleged violation of the provisions of CGST Act, UPGST Act read with IGST Act further read with GST (Compensation to States) Act, 2017 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been asked to show cause as to why:

(vi) Penalty equvalent to the Central Excise Duty including NCCD evaded as specified in the impugned notice should not be imposed upon the petitioners under Section 11AC(c) read with Section 11A (4) of the Central Excise Act, 1994 read with Rule 28 (1) (a), Rule 28 (1) (b) and Rule 28 (1) (c) of the Central Excise Rules, 2017 read with Section 136 of the Finacne Act, 2001 for commission of offences specified under Section 9AA read with Section 9 (1) (b), Section 9 (1) (bb) and Section 9 (1)(bbb) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 28 (1) of the Central Excise Rules 2017.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the impugned Show Cause Notice on the ground that Notice has been issued with oblique motive, is based on incorrect facts, contains numerous inaccuracies and is liable to be interfered with by this Court. It is alleged in the Show Cause Notice that 4 Trucks were intercepted by the Respondent no. 1 on 22.12.2021 near Bakarganj Chauraha, Kanpur i.e. a place outside the premises of the petitioner No. 1 located at 133/232, Transport Nagar, Kanpur Nagar, Kanpur which was allegedly carrying Shikhar Brand Pan Masala and SS-1 brand scented tobacco without any invoice/E-Way Bill, whereas the correct facts are that altogether 4 Trucks were being loaded with the above goods outside the factory of the petitioner No.

It is also asserted that after physical verification of the Trucks, the applicable GST was paid in respect to the materials loaded in the 4 trucks. It is further submitted that the impugned notice is based on presumptions and assumptions without corroborating evidence and has been issued with a premeditated mind. The notice does not satisfy

the criteria for ascertainment of duty envisaged under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 and as such is bad in law. The notice is also vague inasmuch as on one hand it alleges that the invoices are fake and on the other hand it has been asserted that the value in the invoices have been kept low with intent to evade duty/taxes. It is accordingly, prayed that the impugned notice be set aside and the proceedings be quashed. It is also submitted that the petitioner has voluntarily deposited a sum of Rs. 50 Crores in response to the Show Cause notice. Reliance is placed upon a decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court in Bharat Mint and allied Chemicals vs. Commissioner Commercial Tax and 2 others (2022 Law Suit (All) 228.

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

1. Heard Shri Vishwajeet Singh, learned Senior advocate, assisted by Sri Harish Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners Sri Krishna Agarwal and Sri Parv Agarwal, learned counsels for the respondents.

4. Per contra, the writ petition has been opposed by learned Counsels for the contesting respondents by submitting that the writ petition has been filed against a Show Cause Notice and the Competent Authority after due investigation, scrutiny of Invoices, and consignment notes, verification of the date available on the GSTN Portal regarding the registration of the Firms dealing with the petitioner having found to be fake/ non-existent has found that it is a fit case to issue the impugned notice. He submits that the consideration at the stage of the Show Cause Notice is limited to ascertainment of information that the assessee has evaded tax liability. Final determination is to be made after considering the reply of the assessee. It is also argued that the petitioner is at liberty to raise all factual issues/objections at the appropriate stage. It is thus submitted that no interference is warranted by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. We have heard learned counsels for the petitioner as also the learned counsels for the respondents and have perused the record.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records particularly to the contents of the Show Cause Notice impugned, prima-facie we find that the allegations leveled against the petitioners have substance. We, however are not inclined to venture into the correctness or otherwise of the allegations set out in the impugned Show Cause Notice as the same would involve fact appreciation and with respect to the same the petitioners have adequate statutory remedies available by filing appropriate objections to the Show Cause Notice and lead defence evidence controverting the allegations. Suffice is to note that there is no inherent lack of jurisdiction of the Competent Authority to issue the impugned Show Cause Notice. The argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Show Cause Notice has been issued with a premeditated mind does not merit consideration at this stage of the proceedings. We are of the view that once allegations of infraction of law arise the adjudication proceedings may not be interjected in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India particularly in view of the fact that reference made to other facts narrated in the Show Cause Notice would also remain to be examined in the adjudication proceedings.

Revenue / respondent submissions

The judgment does not separately label the respondent’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

Notice. The case Law relied upon in our opinion has no application to the facts of the present case.

Operative decision and relief

8. In view of the above the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioners to take recourse to the remedies available to them under the law. It is however, made clear that we have not adjudicated the facts and no observation made in this order may prejudice the defence that may be set up by the petitioner in the pending adjudication.

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with Trimurti Fragrances And Flavours Pvt. Ltd. And 6 Others v. Director General Of Goods And Services Tax 2 Others concerns issue and context: the challenge in this writ petition is to the demand-cum-show cause notice dated 07.06.2023 bearing no. dggi/azu/gr-c/36-12/2023-24 and file no. dggi/azu/gr-c/12(4) 05/2023-24 issued by the respondent no. 1 and 2 purportedly for alleged violation of the provisions of cgst act, upgst act read with igst act further read with gst (compensation to states) act, 2017 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been asked to show cause as to why: operative disposition: in view of the above the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioners to take recourse to the remedies available to them under the law. it is however, made clear that we have not adjudicated the facts and no observation made in this order may prejudice the defence that may be set up by the petitioner in the pending The proposition cannot be separated from the judgment’s facts, the governing statutory version, the forum’s jurisdiction, and the exact relief recorded in WRIT TAX No. 1290 of 2023.

For working-paper purposes, the decision should be cited only after matching the material facts and reading the passages under the judgment-grounded record above. The editorial outcome label “Dismissed” is a navigation aid; it does not replace the operative order or explain every issue in a multi-issue case.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant when a file raises the same central question identified in the source headnote: Issue and context: The challenge in this writ petition is to the Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice dated 07.06.2023 bearing No. DGGI/AZU/Gr-C/36-12/2023-24 and file No. DGGI/AZU/Gr-C/12(4) 05/2023-24 issued by the respondent No. 1 and 2 purportedly for alleged violation of the provisions of CGST Act, UPGST Act read with IGST Act further read with GST (Compensation to States) Act, 2017 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been asked to show cause as to why: Operative disposition: In view of the above the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioners to take recourse to the remedies available to them under the law. It is however, made clear that we have not adjudicated the facts and no observation made in this order may prejudice the defence that may be set up by the petitioner in the pending Its practical value lies in the way the Allahabad High Court connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 9; GST statutory provision - Section 9A; GST statutory provision - Section 11A; GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 136—to the procedural posture and evidence before it.

The authority level is High Court. That affects persuasive or binding weight, but authority level alone is never enough. Territorial jurisdiction, statutory period, the identity of the challenged order, and later appellate treatment must all be checked before the case is used in advice, a submission, or litigation strategy.

Practitioner action points

• Begin with the complete judgment and mark the paragraphs supporting the exact proposition relied upon.
• Match the statutory version of GST statutory provision - Section 9; GST statutory provision - Section 9A; GST statutory provision - Section 11A; GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 136 and the decision date 2023-11-08; do not assume the current text is identical.
• Compare the notice, assessment, appeal or other procedural sequence with the chronology recorded in this case.
• Verify the stated later-history status and any review, appeal, SLP, curative or rectification proceedings before citation.
• Record why the client’s evidence is materially similar, and also record any fact capable of distinguishing the result.

Does this case match your facts?

Detailed reliance and distinction analysis

Identity check. Confirm that the cited cause title is Trimurti Fragrances And Flavours Pvt. Ltd. And 6 Others v. Director General Of Goods And Services Tax 2 Others, the proceeding is WRIT TAX No. 1290 of 2023, and the decision is dated 2023-11-08. These fields are taken from the judgment record and should appear exactly in the citation note.

Bench check. The judgment identifies the coram as Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,Chief Justice; Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.. A later order by another bench, a larger bench, or a higher forum may alter the weight or interpretation of the proposition.

Provision check. The source associates the dispute with GST statutory provision - Section 9; GST statutory provision - Section 9A; GST statutory provision - Section 11A; GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 136. The practitioner should place the historical statutory text next to the current text and identify every amendment, proviso, explanation, rule or notification that could change the analysis.

Fact check. The source issue is not a free-standing abstract rule. It arises from the concrete record summarized above. A reliable application note should list the common facts, the different facts, and whether each difference affects jurisdiction, admissibility, limitation, burden, computation or relief.

Remedy check. The recorded result is Dismissed. Where a matter is remanded, set aside, partly allowed, or disposed with directions, the exact operative language is more important than a binary winner/loser label.

History check. The current closure state is REVIEW_APPEAL_SLP_SUBSEQUENT_TREATMENT_CHECK_PENDING. If that state is pending, the page does not assert that no later case exists. It means the check remains open and must be completed at the point of professional reliance.

Section / provision impact

• GST statutory provision - Section 9 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 9A — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 11A — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 74 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 136 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

• M/S PATANJALI AYURVED LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Allahabad High Court · Dismissed
• Ram Pratap Singh v. Union Of India And 7 Others — Allahabad High Court · Dismissed
• Trimurti Fragrances Pvt Ltd. And And 4 Others v. Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax And 2 Others — Allahabad High Court · Dismissed
• M/S Universal Enterprises v. Union Of India And Another — Allahabad High Court · Dismissed

Related Finin2min resources

• Case Law Hub
• Search all 792 judgments
• Explore Demand & Adjudication

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_TEXT_SANITIZED_RENDITION · Repository status: PUBLISH_READY