M/S. G K Infrastructures vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Central Tax

Held

The Court did not delve into the merits of the case. The petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition to avail the statutory remedy of appeal before the appellate authority under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. The Court granted this request. The Court directed that if the appeal is preferred within two weeks from the date of the order, the appellate authority should consider it in accordance with the law. The appellate authority was also directed to consider the appeal sympathetically, without being persuaded by any delay in approaching it, and to take into account that the petitioner was pursuing the remedy before the High Court. No order as to costs was made. The issue of the validity of the impugned orders was expressly left undecided.

Facts

M/s. G K Infrastructures (the petitioner) filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging an Order-in-Original dated December 20, 2024, and a Summary of Order in Form DRC-07 dated January 31, 2025. These orders were passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax (Respondent No. 1) under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017, for the tax period from June 2019 to October 2019. The impugned orders imposed a tax liability of Rs. 2,46,49,966, along with interest and penalty. The respondents included the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, the Deputy Director (DGGI), the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, and the Union of India. The petitioner sought to declare the impugned orders void, arbitrary, illegal, and without jurisdiction.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned Order in Form DRC-07 and the Order-in-Original, passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017, are void, arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned orders suffered from illegality and lack of jurisdiction. They sought to have these orders set aside. Revenue's contention: The learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC submitted that the petitioner had bypassed the statutory remedy of appeal and approached the High Court after some delay. The petitioner's counsel, after some arguments, sought permission to withdraw the writ petition to approach the appellate authority under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, requesting sympathetic consideration for the delay.