M/S Appl-Vdb(Jv) vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Central Tax

Held

The Court did not delve into the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing for some time, sought to withdraw the petition with a liberty to avail the alternate remedy of appeal. There was no objection from the other side. Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed as withdrawn. However, in the interest of justice, the Court directed that if the petitioner prefers an appeal before the Competent Appellate Authority within 15 days from the date of the order, the authority shall consider and decide the appeal on its merits and shall not reject it on the grounds of delay. No costs were awarded. Any pending interlocutory applications were also closed.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s APPL-VDB(JV), filed a writ petition challenging an Order in Original No. 116/2024-24(GST)BHD dated 29.08.2024, passed by Respondent No. 3, and a subsequent order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 30.08.2024, passed by Respondent No. 4. These orders pertained to the financial year 2019-20 and imposed a tax demand of Rs. 72,95,828.00, including interest and penalty. The petitioner contended that these actions were illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of principles of natural justice and specific provisions of the CGST Act, 2017, including Sections 65, 73, and 74, and Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner sought to set aside these orders.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of Respondent No. 3 in passing Order in Original No. 116/2024-24(GST)BHD dated 29.08.2024 and the subsequent order passed by Respondent No. 4 in Form GST DRC-07 dated 30.08.2024 for FY 2019-20, demanding tax, interest, and penalty, is illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned orders were passed in violation of Section 65 of the CGST Act, 2017, and beyond the limitation prescribed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017. They further contended that the assessment was wrongly made under Section 74 instead of Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017, solely to circumvent the limitation period. This action, according to the petitioner, is illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice, and violates their rights under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Respondents' Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents.