M/S Jrr Nirman And Co. vs. Commissioner Of Central Excise And

Held

The High Court held that the issue in controversy was directly and squarely covered by the judgment of a co-ordinate bench in M/s. Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust Vs. Joint Commissioner of Central Tax (WP No.11154/2023 & connected matters dated 03.07.2024). Following that precedent, the Court quashed the impugned Order-in-Original dated 14.01.2023 passed by the first respondent. The matter was remitted back to the concerned respondent to the stage of post show cause notice, with liberty to proceed further in accordance with law. The petitioners were also granted liberty to file their pleadings within a reasonable time fixed by the concerned officers. The ratio decidendi is that challenges to Orders-in-Original, when covered by established judicial pronouncements, should be decided in line with those precedents, leading to setting aside of the impugned order and remand for reconsideration from an earlier stage.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. JRR Nirman and Co., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging an Order-in-Original dated 14.01.2023, bearing DIN No.20230157YZ0000222FB2, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Central Tax (GST), Mangaluru (the first respondent). The petitioner sought to quash this order. The respondents were represented by the Commissioner and the Principal Chief Commissioner of Central Tax. The court heard both parties and perused the material on record. The judgment notes that while several contentions were urged, the issue was directly covered by a previous judgment of a co-ordinate bench of the same court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Order-in-Original dated 14.01.2023, passed by the first respondent, is liable to be quashed. This issue turns on the interpretation and application of principles governing challenges to Orders-in-Original under GST law, particularly in light of prior judicial pronouncements. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought to quash the Order-in-Original, implying it was passed erroneously or without proper consideration of facts or law. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not explicitly record the revenue's specific contentions. However, by defending the Order-in-Original, it is implied that the revenue contended for its validity and the correctness of the proceedings leading to it. The judgment notes that both sides urged several contentions, but does not detail them, instead relying on a co-ordinate bench's decision.