Intech Analytical Instruments vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Central Tax

Facts

The Petitioner, Intech Analytical Instruments, filed a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Original (OIO) No. 12312024-25-GST, dated February 26, 2025, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, Kukatpally Division. This order confirmed a demand of Rs. 1,38,61,702/- for the financial year 2020-21, purportedly under Section 73 of the CGST Act. The Petitioner also challenged the Show Cause Notice (SCN) in Form No. DRC-01, dated November 23, 2024, issued for the same period. The Petitioner contended that the OIO was passed without application of mind and that their reply was not considered. The OIO was issued in unsigned Form GST DRC-07.

Held

The Court did not delve into the merits of the contentions raised by the parties. Instead, upon hearing the learned counsel for both sides, the Court granted liberty to the Petitioner to prefer an appeal against the impugned Order-in-Original. The Petitioner was directed to file the appeal within a period of two weeks, along with the statutory pre-deposit and a delay condonation application. The Court noted that the Petitioner could raise all available grounds of law and fact in the memo of appeal. It was further directed that the appellate authority would consider the question of delay sympathetically, taking into account the facts and circumstances presented, and if satisfied, proceed to decide the appeal on its merits in accordance with the law. The writ petition was disposed of with this liberty, and no order as to costs was made.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Order-in-Original No. 12312024-25-GST, dated February 26, 2025, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, is void, illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the principles of natural justice and constitutional provisions, including Articles 14, 19, 21, and 265 of the Constitution of India, for being passed without application of mind and without considering the Petitioner's reply? 2. Whether the Show Cause Notice in Form No. DRC-01, dated November 23, 2024, is non est in the eyes of law? Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner argued that the OIO was passed without proper application of mind and that their reply to the SCN was not considered. They also contended that the OIO was in unsigned Form GST DRC-07, rendering it invalid. The Petitioner sought to declare both the SCN and the OIO as void, illegal, and arbitrary. Respondents' Arguments: The Respondents, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC and the Deputy Solicitor General of India, did not present detailed arguments on the merits of the case during this hearing. However, they indicated that the Petitioner was at liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned order.