M/S Ravindran Achuthan Security Agency vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court noted that the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 112(1) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017, within three months from the pronouncement of the order or the constitution of the Appellate Tribunal. Taking into account the respondents' stand regarding CBIC circular No. 224/18/2024, which provides guidelines for stay on recovery of outstanding dues in cases where the first appeal has been disposed of and the Appellate Tribunal is not yet operational, the Court disposed of the writ application. The petitioner was granted liberty to avail their statutory appellate remedy before the Appellate Tribunal as and when it is constituted. In the interim, the petitioner was permitted to seek a stay on the recovery of outstanding dues in terms of the aforementioned CBIC circular. The issue regarding the validity of the Demand Notice DRC-07 due to the absence of a signature was not expressly decided but was implicitly addressed by directing the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Ravindran Achuthan Security Agency, filed a writ application challenging an order dated 22.07.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeals), Patna. This order rejected the petitioner's statutory appeal on grounds of limitation, allegedly ignoring the date of issuance of the certified copy of the Assessing Officer's order as 09.04.2024. The petitioner also challenged a Demand Notice DRC-07 dated 25.01.2023 issued by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Patna Central Circle, alleging it was not signed, contrary to Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017. The respondents, represented by the State of Bihar and its tax authorities, filed a counter affidavit.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Additional Commissioner of State Tax erred in rejecting the petitioner's statutory appeal on the grounds of limitation, by not considering the date of issuance of the certified copy of the Assessing Officer's order (09.04.2024) as the starting point for the appeal period, as required by law? 2. Whether the Demand Notice DRC-07 dated 25.01.2023, issued by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, is invalid for want of signature, thereby contravening Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the appeal was rejected due to limitation, overlooking the certified copy's issuance date. They also argued the demand notice was invalid due to the lack of signature. Respondents' arguments: The respondents, in their counter affidavit, referred to CBIC circular No. 224/18/2024 dated 11th July 2024, which provides guidelines for stay on recovery of outstanding dues when the first appeal has been disposed of and the Appellate Tribunal is not yet constituted, upon payment of the prescribed pre-deposit.