M/S Ramakrishna Food Industry vs. Thethe Superintendent Of Central Goods And Services Tax Superindent

Held

The Court noted that the petitioner, after some arguments, sought liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned Order-in-Original dated March 30, 2024. The petitioner indicated that some delay might have occurred in approaching the appellate authority and requested the Court to direct the appellate authority to consider it sympathetically. The revenue's counsel acknowledged that the appeal was barred by considerable delay but stated that it was for the petitioner to prefer an appeal and explain the grounds of delay to the appellate authority. The Court, upon hearing both parties and without commenting on the merits of the contentions, granted the petitioner liberty to approach the appellate authority within two weeks. This liberty included making a statutory deposit and filing an application for condonation of delay, which the appellate authority was directed to consider in accordance with the law. The petitioner was also granted liberty to raise all grounds, both on facts and in law, before the appellate authority. The writ petition was disposed of with this liberty, and no order as to costs was made.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Ramakrishna Food Industry, filed a writ petition before the Telangana High Court challenging an Order-in-Original dated March 30, 2024, and a consequential Form GST DRC-07 dated April 6, 2024. These orders were passed by the Superintendent of Central Goods and Services Tax, Mancherial Range, under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, for the tax period 2017-2018, imposing tax, penalty, and interest. The petitioner sought to declare these orders illegal, arbitrary, barred by limitation, and issued without jurisdiction. The revenue contended that the appeal against the order-in-original was barred by considerable delay.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Order-in-Original No. 59/2023-24-GST dated 30.03.2024 and the consequential Form GST DRC-07 dated 06.04.2024, passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, are illegal, arbitrary, barred by limitation, and issued without jurisdiction, as argued by the petitioner? 2. Whether the invocation of Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, is without authority of law and in violation of Article 265 and principles of natural justice, given that all material emanated from the petitioner's own disclosed GST returns and the principal component was voluntarily reversed, as contended by the petitioner? The petitioner argued that the impugned adjudication was illegal, arbitrary, barred by limitation, and issued without jurisdiction, contrary to the statutory mandate of the CGST and TSGST Acts. They specifically challenged the invocation of Section 74 in the given facts. The revenue, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, submitted that the appeal against the order-in-original was barred by considerable delay, but it was up to the petitioner to prefer an appeal and explain the grounds of delay before the appellate authority.