V. Azhagarima vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise

Held

The Court acknowledged that the impugned order was consequential and that the petitioner ought to have challenged the primary order passed on 30.12.2022. However, considering the special facts and circumstances, and without delving into the petitioner's claim of no knowledge of the primary order, the Court permitted the petitioner to file an appeal against the primary order before the appellate authority. This appeal was to be filed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the Court's order and would be numbered without reference to limitation. The petitioner was required to pay a 7.5% pre-deposit amount. Upon remittance of the pre-deposit and filing of the appeal, the attachment made on the petitioner's bank account would be lifted forthwith. The Court did not decide on the merits of the primary order or the demand notice.

Facts

The petitioner, V. Azhagarima, filed a writ petition challenging a demand notice dated 17.10.2025 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Thanjavur Division. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was consequential and that they had no knowledge of the primary order passed on 30.12.2022. The revenue, represented by the Assistant Commissioner, was the respondent. The dispute involved a demand notice, and the procedural history indicated that the petitioner sought to challenge a primary order that had already been passed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner can challenge a consequential demand notice when the primary order, passed on 30.12.2022, has not been challenged by the petitioner, and the petitioner claims no knowledge of it? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they had no knowledge of the primary order dated 30.12.2022 and therefore sought to challenge the consequential demand notice. The petitioner's primary concern was the attachment of their bank account. Revenue's contention: The revenue, through the Assistant Commissioner, implicitly argued that the demand notice was valid as it followed a primary order. The judgment does not explicitly record any specific arguments from the revenue regarding the petitioner's claim of no knowledge or the validity of the primary order itself, beyond the fact that the demand notice was consequential.