M/S. Seiko Polyclosures vs. The Deputy Commissioner (St)

Held

The Court did not comment on the merits of the contentions raised by the parties. Instead, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the impugned order within a period of three weeks from the date of the order. The petitioner was directed to comply with the statutory pre-deposit requirement. The Court further directed that the appellate authority should consider the question of delay sympathetically, taking into account the facts and circumstances presented, and if satisfied regarding the delay, proceed to decide the appeal on its merits in accordance with law. The writ petition was disposed of with this liberty.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Seiko Polyclosures, filed a writ petition challenging an order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 10-03-2026, issued by the Deputy Commissioner (ST), Enforcement Wing-2 (First Respondent). The order pertains to the financial year 2019-20 and was passed under Section 74 of the GST Acts, 2017. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without jurisdiction, was invalid, barred by limitation, and lacked a valid DIN and signature on the show cause notice. The petitioner also argued that the ingredients for invoking Section 74 were not met and that the assessment was based on a single authorization for inspection without post-inspection authorization. The petition sought to set aside the impugned order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 10-03-2026, issued under Section 74 of the GST Acts, 2017, is without jurisdiction, invalid, barred by limitation, and not sustainable on merits due to alleged procedural irregularities such as lack of valid authorization, absence of DIN, and unsigned show cause notice. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the order was fundamentally flawed due to a lack of proper authorization for assessment, the absence of a DIN, and an unsigned show cause notice. They contended that Section 74 was wrongly invoked as the necessary ingredients were not present. The petitioner also raised concerns about the order being barred by limitation and generally illegal and arbitrary. Revenue's arguments: The learned counsel for the State submitted that the petitioner was in default in approaching the appellate authority and requested that the petitioner be directed to consider the appeal sympathetically. The State's counsel indicated that some delay might have occurred in preferring the appeal and sought condonation of delay.