M/S.Vijay Bikes vs. Superintendent Of CGST And Ce

Held

The Court held that the impugned Order-in-Original No. 52/GST/SUPDT/TVL RANGE/2023 dated 14.12.2023, passed by the Superintendent of CGST & CE, Tirunelveli Range, should be quashed. The Court reasoned that since the petitioner claimed an erroneous demand was confirmed and the entire disputed tax had been recovered, it was appropriate to allow the petitioner to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice. The matter was remitted back to the respondent for fresh adjudication. The petitioner was directed to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice within thirty days of receiving the order, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice. Upon receipt of the reply, the respondent was to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law within three months, after hearing the petitioner. If the petitioner failed to file the reply within the stipulated period, the respondent was at liberty to proceed as if the writ petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Vijay Bikes, represented by its Proprietor Varadaraj Prethip, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The petition challenged the Order-in-Original No. 52/GST/SUPDT/TVL RANGE/2023 dated 14.12.2023, passed by the Superintendent of CGST & CE, Tirunelveli Range. This order confirmed the proposal contained in a Show Cause Notice dated 30.06.2023, which was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner contended that an erroneous demand had been confirmed and that the entire disputed tax had already been recovered. The respondent, the Superintendent of CGST & CE, confirmed these submissions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned Order-in-Original No. 52/GST/SUPDT/TVL RANGE/2023 dated 14.12.2023, passed by the Superintendent of CGST & CE, Tirunelveli Range, is liable to be quashed and the matter remanded for re-adjudication. Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that an erroneous demand had been confirmed by the respondent and that the entire disputed tax had already been recovered. The petitioner sought to quash the impugned order and remand the matter back to the respondent for re-adjudication according to law. Respondent's contentions: The respondent confirmed the petitioner's submissions regarding the recovery of the disputed tax and the potential for an erroneous demand.