Sri Tanishq Garments vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Central Tax

Held

The Court did not delve into the merits of the contentions raised by the parties. Instead, upon hearing the arguments, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the Order-in-Original within a period of two weeks. This appeal should include a statutory pre-deposit and a delay condonation application. The petitioner was advised to raise all available grounds of law and fact in the memo of appeal. The Court directed that the appellate authority would consider the question of delay sympathetically, taking into account the facts and circumstances, and if satisfied, proceed to decide the appeal on merits. During the two-week period for filing the appeal, no coercive steps were to be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the garnishee notice. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Tanishq Garments, filed a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Original No. 1412024-25 dated 20.08.2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax. The petitioner also sought to quash a bank attachment effected via FORM GST DRC-13 dated 22.06.2026, which they became aware of only upon receiving a garnishee notice on 21.06.2026. The petitioner argued that the order was illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and contrary to Section 16(5) of the CGST Act, 2017. They also challenged a notification prescribing a six-month time limit for certain benefits as ultra vires and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. During the proceedings, the petitioner sought liberty to prefer an appeal against the Order-in-Original, acknowledging potential delay.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Order-in-Original No. 1412024-25 dated 20.08.2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, is illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and contrary to Section 16(5) of the CGST Act, 2017. 2. Whether Notification No. 22/2024-Central Tax dated 08.10.2024, issued under Section 148 of the CGST Act, 2017, is ultra vires Section 148 of the Act and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, insofar as it purports to extinguish the substantive statutory benefit conferred under Section 16(5) of the CGST Act, 2017, upon the lapse of the six-month period. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the impugned Order-in-Original was illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and contrary to Section 16(5) of the CGST Act, 2017. They also argued that the six-month time limit prescribed by Notification No. 22/2024-Central Tax was ultra vires the CGST Act and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, as it extinguished a substantive statutory benefit. Respondents' arguments: The Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC submitted that the petitioner was at liberty to prefer an appeal against the order-in-original and DRC-07, taking all available grounds before the appellate authority.