M/S. Laxmi Narasimha Iron Merchant Jangaon vs. The Superintendent Of Central Tax

Held

The Court did not comment on the merits of the contentions raised by the parties. Instead, it disposed of the writ petition by granting the petitioner liberty to prefer an appeal against the order-in-original within a period of two weeks, subject to making the statutory pre-deposit. The Court directed the appellate authority to consider the appeal sympathetically, taking into account the delay in approaching the appellate authority and the fact that the petitioner had been pursuing the writ remedy before the High Court in the meantime. The petitioner was also granted liberty to raise all grounds in law and on facts before the appellate authority. The Court explicitly stated that it did not wish to comment on the merits of the contentions raised by the parties.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Laxmi Narasimha Iron Merchant, filed a writ petition challenging an order-in-original and a summary of order in Form GST DRC-07, both dated February 6-7, 2025, passed by the Superintendent of Central Tax under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017, for the tax period 2020-2021. The petitioner claimed to have learned about the liability only upon receiving a garnishee notice dated August 22, 2025, for the attachment of its bank account. The petitioner sought to declare the impugned orders void, arbitrary, and illegal, and also challenged a notification amending Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules, 2017. During the proceedings, the petitioner sought liberty to file an appeal against the order-in-original, acknowledging a potential delay in approaching the appellate authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order-in-original and summary of order in Form GST DRC-07, dated February 6-7, 2025, passed by the Superintendent of Central Tax under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017, are void, arbitrary, illegal, and without jurisdiction, violating Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265 of the Constitution of India. 2. Whether Notification No. 79/2020-CT dated October 15, 2020, issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, amending Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules, 2017, is without the 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. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the impugned orders were illegal and without jurisdiction. They also argued that the notification amending Rule 142(1A) was beyond the statutory powers conferred by Section 73(5) of the CGST Act and violated fundamental rights. Revenue's arguments: The revenue submitted that the petitioner was at liberty to prefer an appeal against the order-in-original and DRC-07, raising all available grounds before the appellate authority.