M/S. P Kumaravel And Sons vs. Deputy Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise

Held

The Court noted that the matter was listed for hearing on 10.12.2025, and on that date, there was no representation for the petitioner. Consequently, the Court directed the Registry to list the matter under the caption "for dismissal" for 15.12.2025. Even on 15.12.2025, when the matter was called for hearing, there was again no representation from the petitioner. Therefore, the Court dismissed the Writ Petition for non-prosecution. No order as to costs was made. The specific merits of the challenge to the Order in Original were not considered due to the petitioner's absence.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.P Kumaravel and Sons, filed a Writ Petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an Order in Original dated 25.11.2021, which was passed by the Deputy Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Madurai II Division. This order was based on a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 10.10.2017. The petitioner sought to quash this order and be relieved from any penalty and related legal actions. The matter was listed for hearing on 10.12.2025, and subsequently on 15.12.2025. On both occasions, there was no representation from the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned Order in Original dated 25.11.2021, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Madurai II Division, is liable to be quashed? The petitioner's contention, as inferred from the prayer, is that the order imposing penalty and other legal actions should be set aside. The specific grounds for challenging the order are not detailed in the judgment as the petitioner did not appear. The respondent, the Deputy Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Madurai II Division, would likely argue for the upholding of the impugned order, assuming the petitioner had presented their case. However, as the petitioner remained absent, no arguments were presented by the respondent in defense of the order during the hearing.