M/S. Sri Satya Sai Infrastructures Private Limited vs. The Commissioner Of Customs And Central Tax

Held

The Court acknowledged the Petitioner's submission that the appellate authority passed a cryptic order without assigning reasons for setting aside the Order-in-Original. However, the Revenue contended that the order under challenge is appealable under Section 112(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, and that the Appellate Tribunal has been constituted and is functional, citing a Circular dated September 24, 2025. The Court noted that co-ordinate benches have consistently directed appellants to avail the remedy of appeal. Regarding interim relief, the Court held that subject to the Petitioner depositing 10% of the required pre-deposit tax amount while filing the appeal, the respondents should not initiate coercive steps until the Petitioner avails the remedy of appeal as per the Circular dated September 24, 2025, and the prescribed limitation. The Court did not decide on the merits of the Order-in-Appeal itself but directed the Petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy.

Facts

M/s. Sri Satya Sai Infrastructures Private Limited (Petitioner) filed a writ petition before the Telangana High Court challenging an Order-in-Appeal dated January 23, 2025, passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Tax, Appeals-II, Hyderabad (1st Respondent). The Petitioner contended that the Order-in-Appeal was passed in a cryptic manner, without due process, and failed to consider their cross-objections and evidence. They also argued that the Appellate Tribunal, where a second appeal would normally lie under Section 112 of the CGST/SGST Acts, 2017, was not yet constituted. The tax periods in dispute are 2017-18 and 2018-19. The Petitioner sought to set aside the Order-in-Appeal and restore the Order-in-Original dated December 21, 2023.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Order-in-Appeal dated January 23, 2025, passed by the 1st Respondent is liable to be set aside for being bald, cryptic, and in violation of the principles of natural justice, as argued by the Petitioner? The Petitioner contended that the appellate authority failed to provide reasons for setting aside the Order-in-Original and did not consider their cross-objections and evidence. 2. Whether the writ petition is maintainable given that an appeal lies before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 of the CGST/SGST Acts, 2017, and whether the non-constitution of the Tribunal renders the Order-in-Appeal liable to be quashed, as argued by the Petitioner? The Petitioner argued that the absence of a constituted Tribunal makes the Order-in-Appeal void. The Revenue, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, contended that the Order-in-Appeal is appealable under Section 112(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, and that the Tribunal has been constituted and is functional. They relied on a Circular dated September 24, 2025, outlining the procedure for filing appeals during the interim period.