CM No.5395/2021 (for exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to just exception and as per extant Rules.

2. The application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) 1867/2021

3. The petition seeks a direction to the respondent no.2 Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBITC) to reply to the representation dated 17th November, 2020 of the petitioner. A similar direction is also sought to the respondent no.6 Sales Tax Officer, Class II/AVATO, Ward 71, Zone 6, Delhi, to take up the representation dated 15th January, 2021 of the petitioner and pass a speaking order deciding the same within a reasonable time.

4. We have enquired from the counsel for the petitioner, whether there is any mandate in law on the respondent no.2 CBITC to reply to each and every representation made/communication sent to it. We may in this context notice that the communication dated 17th November, 2020 seeks clarification of Section 168 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) on issues arising out of interception/detention and seizure/confiscation proceedings under Sections 129 and 130 of the CGST Act by the Karnataka authorities. The communication dated 17^th November, 2020 is in the nature of seeking legal opinion from CBITC.

5. In our opinion, there is no such obligation on the respondent no.2 CBITC and the counsel for the petitioner has not cited any authority holding so, to advise the petitioner on, the authority under which goods in movement are intercepted, detained and/or procedure to be adopted thereafter and the scope of verification of documents etc. The petitioner, if in doubt as to the legal position, instead of seeking legal counsel of its advisors/advocates, cannot turn to respondent No. 2 CBITC to give legal opinion.

6. The counsel for the petitioner then contends that the respondent no.6 has cancelled the registration of the petitioner.

7. We have enquired from the counsel for the petitioner, whether not the remedy thereagainst is to challenge the same instead of making representation thereagainst.

8. Though the counsel for the petitioner has no reply but the counsel for the respondent no.6 fairly informs that under Section 30 of the CGST Act, an application for revocation of the cancellation of registration is permitted to be filed. He further states that the respondent no.6 will decide the application dated 3rd November, 2020 of the petitioner in a time bound manner.

9. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of directing the respondent no.6 Sales Tax Officer, Class II/AVATO, Ward 71: Zone 6, Delhi, to decide the application dated 3rd November, 2020 of the petitioner under Section 30 of the Act, within four weeks of today.