Shaik Mohiddin vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition based on a consensus reached between the parties, in terms of an order passed in a similar writ petition (W.P.No.3600 of 2024). The petitioner was directed to deposit 10% of the tax liability, as assessed by the Assessing Officer, with the Department within four weeks from the date of the order. The petitioner was also directed to approach the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal within three months from its constitution/establishment. The Appellate Tribunal is to decide the second appeal in accordance with law. Further, subject to the deposit of 10% of the tax liability within the stipulated time, no coercive action is to be taken against the petitioner until the decision of the Appellate Tribunal. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. There was no order as to costs.

Facts

The petitioner, Shaik Mohiddin, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Commissionerate of Customs and Central Tax, Appeals-I, dismissing his appeal. The petitioner sought a direction to serve an ex-parte order dated March 20, 2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, Nalgonda CGST Division. The petitioner had submitted several representations to respondents 3 to 5 regarding this issue. The writ petition was filed seeking to declare the appellate order illegal and arbitrary, and to set it aside. The petitioner also sought interim relief to direct the appellate authority to comply with the prayer in his appeal, which was to serve the ex-parte order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order passed by the Commissionerate of Customs and Central Tax, Appeals-I, dismissing the petitioner's appeal is illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of the principles of natural justice and fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the service of the ex-parte order dated March 20, 2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, Nalgonda CGST Division, considering his representations? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the appellate order was devoid of merits and contrary to the relief sought. He contended that the dismissal of his appeal was illegal, arbitrary, and violated his fundamental rights and principles of natural justice. He sought a writ of mandamus to set aside the appellate order and to direct the respondents to serve the ex-parte order. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. However, the parties reached a consensus during the hearing.