Nsl Fabricators vs. The Superintendent Of Central Tax

Facts

The petitioner, NSL Fabricators, filed a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Original dated March 26, 2024, and a summary of order in Form GST DRC-07 dated May 2, 2024, passed by the Superintendent of Central Tax for the tax period April 2018 to March 2019. The petitioner contended that these orders were passed without considering their reply and without assigning reasons. They became aware of a tax liability, penalty, and interest upon receiving a garnishee notice on February 5, 2026, for the attachment of their bank account. The respondents, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, submitted that the petitioner had the liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned orders.

Held

The High Court, without delving into the merits of the matter, granted liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the Order-in-Original dated March 26, 2024, and the summary of order in Form GST DRC-07 dated May 2, 2024. The petitioner was directed to file the appeal within two weeks, accompanied by a statutory pre-deposit and a delay condonation application. The Court emphasized that the petitioner could raise all grounds, both on law and facts, in the memo of appeal. It was further directed that the appellate authority should consider the delay condonation application sympathetically, taking into account the facts and circumstances, 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 garnishee notice. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Order-in-Original dated March 26, 2024, and the summary of order in Form GST DRC-07 dated May 2, 2024, passed by the Superintendent of Central Tax are liable to be set aside for non-consideration of the petitioner's reply and lack of reasons, as alleged by the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned orders, despite the delay, considering the circumstances? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned orders were passed without considering their reply and without providing any reasons, making them unsustainable. They also highlighted that they only became aware of the liability through a garnishee notice issued much later. Revenue's arguments: The revenue, through the Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, argued that the petitioner was at liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned orders and raise all available grounds before the appellate authority.