M/S Ramakrishna Food Industry vs. The Asst.Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise

Held

The Court, after hearing both parties, chose not to comment on the merits of the contentions raised. The petitioner's counsel sought liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned Order-in-Original, acknowledging a potential delay in approaching the appellate authority. The Court granted this liberty, directing the petitioner to approach the learned appellate authority within two weeks. The petitioner was also permitted to make a statutory deposit and file an application for condonation of delay, which the appellate authority was directed to consider in accordance with law. The petitioner was further allowed to raise all grounds, both on law and facts, before the appellate authority. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions, and no order as to costs was made. Any pending miscellaneous applications were also closed.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Ramakrishna Food Industry, filed a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Original No. 31/2024-25-GST dated 23.08.2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central GST, Mancherial Range. This order, along with a consequential Form GST DRC-07 dated 27.08.2024, imposed tax, penalty, and interest for the tax period 2020-21. The petitioner contended that the adjudication was illegal, arbitrary, barred by limitation, and without jurisdiction, particularly arguing that Section 73 of the CGST Act was wrongly invoked as the issue stemmed from the petitioner's own disclosed GST returns and a voluntarily reversed principal component. The petitioner sought to quash the impugned orders.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Order-in-Original No. 31/2024-25-GST dated 23.08.2024 and the consequential Form GST DRC-07 dated 27.08.2024 are illegal, arbitrary, barred by limitation, and issued without jurisdiction, contrary to the CGST and TSGST Acts, and in violation of Article 265 and principles of natural justice, specifically concerning the invocation of Section 73 of the CGST Act in light of the petitioner's disclosed returns and voluntary reversal of the principal component? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the entire adjudication process culminating in the impugned orders was without authority of law. They contended that Section 73 of the CGST Act was improperly invoked given the facts, which emanated from their own disclosed GST returns and a voluntarily reversed principal component. They also raised grounds of illegality, arbitrariness, lack of jurisdiction, bar by limitation, violation of Article 265 of the Constitution, and breach of natural justice principles. Respondents' arguments: The learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC submitted that the appeal against the Order-in-Original is barred by considerable delay, as the order is dated 23.08.2024. However, he conceded that it is for the petitioner to prefer an appeal and explain the grounds of delay before the appellate authority.