M/S. Y V G Narayana vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Central Tax

Held

The Court did not delve into the merits of the contentions raised by the parties. Instead, acknowledging the Petitioner's request for liberty to prefer an appeal, the Court granted the Petitioner two weeks to file an appeal against the order-in-original. This appeal should include a statutory pre-deposit and a delay condonation application. The appellate authority was directed to consider the question of delay sympathetically, taking into account the facts and circumstances presented, 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 impugned garnishee notice. The writ petition was disposed of with this liberty granted.

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s. Y V G Narayana, filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated 25.09.2023, an order-in-original dated 21.03.2025, summary orders in Form GST DRC-07 dated 24.03.2025, and a garnishee notice dated 04.06.2026. These actions were initiated by the Superintendent of Central Tax, Hanmakonda Range, and the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, Warangal Division, for the audit period from July 2017 to March 2022. The Petitioner contended that they became aware of the liability only upon receiving the garnishee notice. The Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to set aside these notices and orders, alleging they were arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and violative of natural justice and constitutional provisions. The Petitioner also sought suspension of the garnishee notice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus to set aside the show cause notice, order-in-original, summary orders, and garnishee notice issued by the revenue authorities? 2. Whether the Petitioner should be granted liberty to prefer an appeal against the order-in-original, considering potential delay? The Petitioner argued that the impugned notices and orders were arbitrary, without jurisdiction, vague, and violative of natural justice and constitutional rights, specifically Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265. They also contended that a consolidated order for multiple periods was passed, violating principles of natural justice. The Petitioner primarily sought to quash these actions. The Revenue (Respondents 1 & 2) argued that the Petitioner had the liberty to prefer an appeal against the order-in-original and DRC-07, raising all available grounds before the appellate authority for the subject tax periods.