M/S Pankaj Plastic Industries Private Limited And Anr vs. The Additional Commissioner CGST And Cx And Ors

Held

The Court held that there were no grounds to interfere with the interim order passed by the learned Single Bench. The Court noted that the learned Single Bench had already protected the appellants' interest by stipulating that the proper officer's decision would abide by the result of the writ petition. Furthermore, the learned Single Bench had taken note of the high revenue involved and had directed the matter to be listed for further hearing on November 20, 2024. To further protect the interests of both the appellants and the revenue, the Court added a direction that if the proper officer passed an order, it should be placed before the learned Single Bench on the scheduled hearing date of November 20, 2024. The ratio decidendi is that interim orders directing adjudication subject to the final outcome of a writ petition, with provisions to protect both parties' interests and a clear path for further judicial review, are appropriate in cases involving significant revenue implications and potential financial hardship to the assessee.

Facts

The appellants, M/s. Pankaj Plastic Industries Private Limited & Anr., filed an intra-Court appeal against an interim order dated October 1, 2024, passed by a learned Single Bench in W.P.A. 21427 of 2024. The writ petition challenged a show-cause notice dated July 31, 2024, issued by the CGST Authority. The impugned interim order directed the appellants to respond to the show-cause notice, and the proper officer to proceed with the adjudication after providing a hearing. Crucially, the order stated that any decision by the proper officer would abide by the final result of the writ petition. The appellants argued that the revenue implication of the demand in the show-cause notice was significantly higher than the company's net worth.

Key Issues

1. Whether the interim order dated October 1, 2024, passed by the learned Single Bench in W.P.A. 21427 of 2024, which directed the appellants to submit their response to the show-cause notice and allowed the proper officer to proceed with adjudication subject to the outcome of the writ petition, is sustainable in law? Appellants' Contentions: The appellants argued that the interim order was not sustainable because the revenue implication of the demand proposed in the show-cause notice was excessively high, exceeding the company's net worth. They sought to prevent adjudication pending a final decision on their writ petition. Revenue/State's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the CGST Authority or the Union of India regarding the sustainability of the interim order. However, the interim order itself reflects a direction for adjudication to proceed, albeit subject to the writ petition's outcome, indicating a stance that the process should continue.