M/S Durga Jaiswal (Legal Name) vs. The Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Durga Jaiswal (trading as Atul Automobiles), filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging an Order-in-Appeal dated 16.10.2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals). This appellate order had rejected the petitioner's appeal against an Order-in-Original dated 26.04.2024, which was passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST & CX, Darbhanga Division. The petitioner sought various reliefs, including quashing the appellate order, directing the appellate authority to reconsider the appeal on merits, potentially condoning technical delays, and alternatively, remitting the case back to the adjudicating authority. The petitioner also sought to quash the Order-in-Original on grounds of being ex-parte, violation of natural justice, misinterpretation of provisions, and erroneous factual findings. Additionally, the petitioner sought refund of 10% of the duty demand paid as pre-deposit.
Held
The Court granted the petitioner liberty to challenge the appellate order dated 16.10.2025 by availing the remedy provided under Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Consequently, the present writ petition was disposed of. The Court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's claims regarding the Order-in-Original or the appellate order's substantive grounds, nor did it make any findings on the alleged violations of natural justice or misinterpretations of statutory provisions. The issue of condoning technical delay under Section 107(4) of the CGST Act was not decided on merits as the writ petition was disposed of with liberty to pursue the statutory appeal. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned in the judgment.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Appellate Authority erred in rejecting the petitioner's appeal without considering its substantive grounds and supporting documents, potentially violating principles of natural justice and the provisions of Section 107(4) of the CGST Act concerning condonation of delay? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the appellate order was passed without a proper consideration of the appeal on its merits. They argued for the appellate authority to exercise its power under Section 107(4) of the CGST Act to condone any technical delay and examine the substantive grounds and documents submitted. The petitioner also argued that the Order-in-Original was ex-parte, passed in violation of natural justice, and based on misinterpretations and erroneous findings, making the demand unjustified. They sought a fresh order after a fair hearing and consideration of their submissions. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state.
Sections Cited
Section 107(4), Section 112
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH) 3 08-04-2026 The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:- “(1) For issuing of writ/order/direction/declaration in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order or direction in the nature 2/4 thereof to quash the impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 523/Pat/GST/Appeal/2025-26 dated 16.10.2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Central GST & Central Excise, Patna (hereinafter referred to as "the Appellate Authority"), rejecting
the appeal filed by the petitioner against the Order- in-Original (OIO) No. 02/GST/AC/DBG/2024-25 dated 26.04.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST & CX, Darbhanga Division (hereinafter referred to as "the Adjudicating Authority"), AND (II) For issuing a Writ of Mandamus directing the Appellate Authority to reconsider the appeal on its merits by, exercising its power to condone any technical delay in filing the appeal under Section 107(4) of the CGST Act and by examining the substantive grounds of the appeal and supporting documents and pass a fresh order after and by considering the petitioner's written submissions giving the petitioner a fair hearing. (III) Alternatively, direct the Appellate Authority to remit the case back to the Adjudicating Authority 3/4 with directions to reconsider the order by, following proper procedures as mandated in the CGST Act and Rules and Considering the explanations and documents submitted by the petitioner and providing detailed written reasons for any non-acceptance explanations and documents submitted by the petitioner of demand raised; (IV) For issuing an order of stay or suspension of the demand comprising of tax, interest, and penalty, pending adjudication of this petition, as recovery of the demand would cause irreparable injury to the petitioner's business; (V) To, quash the Order-in-Original No. 02/GST/AC/DBG/2024-25 dated 26.04.2024 on the grounds that the order is ex-parte and passed in violation of natural justice and that the conclusions are based on misinterpretation of statutory provisions and the factual findings are erroneous and the demand raised is unjustified. (VI) To, direct the respondent authorities to refund the amount, 10% of the duty demand, paid by the 4/4 petitioner towards the pre-deposit for filing appeal against the impugned demand, with interest at the rate prescribed under the CGST Act;”
After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty on behalf of the petitioner to challenge the appellate order dated 16.10.2025, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) of Customs, Central GST & Central Excise, Patna in Appeal Case No. 523/Pat/GST/Appeal/2025-26 by availing the remedy provided for under Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Liberty so sought is granted.
Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of.
anuradha/- (Mohit Kumar Shah, J) ( Arun Kumar Jha, J) U
Reproduced from the public record of the Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.