M/S. Doctors Crop Care Limited vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court, having heard the learned counsel for both parties, did not delve into the merits of the contentions raised. Instead, acknowledging that the Petitioner sought liberty to prefer an appeal, the Court inclined to allow this liberty. The Petitioner was granted permission to approach the competent appellate authority within two weeks from the date of the order, along with a statutory pre-deposit and an application for condonation of delay. The Petitioner was permitted to raise all grounds of law and fact in their appeal. The Court directed that if the appellate authority is satisfied regarding the delay, it should proceed to decide the appeal on its merits within three weeks thereafter. During the two-week period for filing the appeal, no coercive steps were to be taken against the Petitioner pursuant to the impugned garnishee notice. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s. Doctors Crop Care Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order-in-original dated January 17, 2025, passed by the Superintendent of Central Tax (GST) under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017. This order imposed tax and penalty for the tax period July 2017 to March 2019. Subsequently, a consequential notice in Form GST DRC-13 dated June 3, 2026, was issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, attaching the Petitioner's bank account with Axis Bank Limited. The Petitioner alleged the order-in-original was contrary to law and violative of natural justice, as it was uploaded on the GST portal without proper service. The Petitioner also stated that the garnishee notice came to their knowledge only upon attachment of their bank account.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order-in-original dated January 17, 2025, passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed on grounds of being contrary to law and violative of principles of natural justice due to improper service on the Petitioner. Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner argued that the order-in-original was not properly served and was uploaded on the GST portal without actual service, thus violating principles of natural justice. They also contended that the consequential notice for attachment of their bank account was issued without proper adherence to legal procedures. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue submitted that the Petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned order, taking all available grounds of law and fact before the appellate authority.