M/S Renuka Marketing vs. The Superintendent Of CGST And Central Excise

Held

The Court acknowledged that the petitioner had suffered an ex-parte order passed by the respondent on 21.02.2025, and that the appeal period had expired. The Court decided to grant relief by permitting the petitioner to file an appeal within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, and directed that this appeal be entertained without reference to the limitation period. As a condition for this leniency, the petitioner was required to pay 10% of the disputed tax amount as a pre-deposit. The Court further stipulated that the petitioner's appeal would only be uploaded after this pre-deposit was made. Upon the petitioner uploading their appeal, the attachment made to the petitioner's bank account was to be lifted immediately. The Court also noted that if the petitioner failed to remit the pre-deposit or file the appeal within the stipulated thirty days, the benefit of this order would be automatically recalled. No specific findings were made on the merits of the assessment order itself, as the matter was disposed of on procedural grounds.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Renuka Marketing, represented by its Proprietor Sureshkumar Rawal, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The petitioner challenged an ex-parte assessment order dated 21.02.2025, passed by the Respondent, The Superintendent of CGST & Central Excise, City Range, Madurai I Division. The order was in relation to the tax period 2020-21. The petitioner also challenged a summary order dated 24.02.2025. The petitioner sought to quash these orders and requested the respondent to redo the assessment proceedings. The appeal period for the impugned order had expired.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ex-parte assessment order passed by the respondent is illegal and devoid of merits, warranting its quashing and a direction to redo the assessment proceedings for the year 2020-21? The petitioner argued that the order was passed ex-parte, implying a lack of opportunity to present their case, and that it was illegal and without merit. The petitioner sought the quashing of the order and a fresh assessment. The respondent's arguments are not recorded in the judgment.