M/S. Sree Shirdi Sai Indane Service vs. The Superintendent Of Central Tax

Held

The Court did not decide the merits of the case. After some arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition to approach the appellate authority, stating there was sufficient cause for any delay in preferring the appeal. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that the appellate authority may be left to decide the appeal along with the delay condonation application in accordance with law, without making any observations on the merits. Consequently, the Court allowed the petitioner liberty to approach the appellate authority with pre-deposit within two weeks, along with a delay condonation application. The appellate authority was directed to consider the question of delay in accordance with law and, if satisfied, entertain the appeal on merits. The Court explicitly stated it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

Facts

M/s. Sree Shirdi Sai Indane Service (the petitioner) filed a writ petition before the Telangana High Court challenging a show cause notice dated December 28, 2023, Form DRC-01 dated January 11, 2024, an Order in Original dated April 16, 2024, and Form DRC-07 dated May 3, 2024. These were issued by the Superintendent of Central Tax (1st Respondent) under the CGST/TGST Act, 2017. The petitioner also challenged Notification No. 79 of 2020, which amended Rule 142(1A) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The petitioner sought to declare these actions void, arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, and in violation of constitutional provisions. They also sought to set aside any recovery proceedings and allow them to operate their bank account. The petition was filed after the issuance of recovery instructions to the petitioner's bank.

Key Issues

1. Whether the show cause notice, Form DRC-01, Order in Original, and Form DRC-07 issued by the 1st Respondent are void, arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, and in violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265 of the Constitution of India? The petitioner argued that these actions were illegal and sought their setting aside. The respondents, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, contended that the order-in-original was uploaded on the portal and there was no reason why an appeal could not have been preferred within time. 2. Whether Notification No. 79 of 2020, amending Rule 142(1A) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, is without authority of law, ultra vires to Section 73(5) of the CGST Act, 2017, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India? The petitioner argued this notification was illegal. The respondents did not present specific arguments on this issue as the petitioner sought to withdraw the petition.