M/S S. Ahmed And Co. vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 Ors

Facts

The petitioner, M/s S. Ahmed and Co., represented by its sole proprietor, is aggrieved by a Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice issued by the Central GST authorities. Following earlier litigation and a direction for reconsideration, an order dated 31.05.2022 was passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central GST, Dibrugarh. This order confirmed a demand for the period 2014-15 to 2017-18 and imposed a penalty. The petitioner appealed this order under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, alleging the appeal was not attended to. The High Court had previously directed the Standing Counsel for Central GST to obtain instructions. The Standing Counsel informed the Court that the appellate authority was reviewing the matter and would soon schedule a personal hearing for the petitioner.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition may not require further adjudication as the appeal has been taken on board by the appellate authority, and the petitioner will be granted a personal hearing. The Court noted the petitioner's apprehension regarding coercive action and granted liberty to file an application for a stay on such actions until the appeal's disposal, directing that such an application be considered with speaking orders. The appellate authority was directed to immediately issue a notice indicating the date of hearing within one week from the date of the order. The Court did not explicitly decide on the merits of the original demand or penalty, focusing instead on the procedural progress of the appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's appeal under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, has been properly considered by the appellate authority, and if not, what is the appropriate course of action? (Mixed question of law and fact) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that their appeal was not being attended to. However, upon the Standing Counsel's submission that the appellate authority was now considering the appeal and would grant a personal hearing, the petitioner submitted that their grievance was substantially redressed and there might not be a live cause of action. They sought a direction against coercive action until the appeal was adjudicated. Revenue's contention: The Revenue, through the Standing Counsel, submitted that instructions had been received, indicating that the appellate authority was looking into the matter and a personal hearing would be scheduled soon. No specific arguments were recorded against the petitioner's initial grievance regarding the non-consideration of the appeal.