M/S. Ss Bags vs. The Superintendent Of CGST And Central Excise

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. SS BAGS., represented by its Proprietrix G. Lakshmi, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 28.12.2023 passed by the Superintendent of CGST and Central Excise, Madurai. The impugned order was passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, for the assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19. The petitioner contended that the order was cryptic, barred by limitation, non-speaking, illegal, and passed without jurisdiction, particularly in view of the amended Section 16(5) of the TNGST Act, 2017. The petitioner sought to quash the order and requested a fresh assessment after being afforded an opportunity of being heard. The respondent authority passed the order ex-parte as the petitioner did not avail the opportunity when the show cause notice was uploaded.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned order dated 28.12.2023. The matter was remitted back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The Court took into account the petitioner's submission that the discrepancy was covered by the amendment to Section 16A by the insertion of Section 16(5) of the Act. Consequently, the usual condition of depositing 25% of the disputed amount was not imposed. The respondent authority was directed to proceed from the stage of personal hearing, afford the petitioner an opportunity to file a reply and produce documentary evidence, and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. The freezing of the petitioner's bank account was also ordered to be raised. The Court explicitly granted one more opportunity to the petitioner. The issue of undue enrichment, mentioned in the prayer, was not expressly decided upon.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 28.12.2023, passed by the Superintendent of CGST and Central Excise, Madurai, under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed on the grounds of being cryptic, barred by limitation, non-speaking, illegal, and passed without jurisdiction, especially considering the amended Section 16(5) of the TNGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the order was passed without jurisdiction due to the amended Section 16(5) of the TNGST Act, 2017. They also contended that the order was cryptic, non-speaking, and barred by limitation. The petitioner sought a fresh assessment after being heard. Respondent's arguments: The respondent's counsel submitted that the impugned order was passed ex-parte because the petitioner did not avail the opportunity provided when the show cause notice was uploaded. The judgment does not record any further arguments from the respondent regarding the merits of the case or the specific grounds raised by the petitioner.