Tvl 0.996 Sankarankoil Weavers Co Operative Society vs. The Superintendent Of CGST And Cex

Held

The Court acknowledged that the appeal period for the impugned ex-parte order had expired. Instead of quashing the order outright, the Court permitted the petitioner to file an appeal within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the High Court's order. This appeal was to be entertained without reference to the limitation period. As a condition for this indulgence, the petitioner was required to pay 10% of the disputed tax amount as a pre-deposit. The Court explicitly stated that if the petitioner failed to remit the pre-deposit or file the appeal within the stipulated thirty days, the benefit granted by this order would stand automatically recalled. The Court did not decide on the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding the order being without jurisdiction or in violation of statutory provisions, as it provided a procedural remedy.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.0.996 Sankarankoil Weavers Co-operative Society, filed a writ petition challenging an ex-parte order dated 24.01.2025, bearing reference GST DRC 07 Ref.No.ZD3301252037120, issued by the Superintendent of CGST and C.Ex., Sankarankoil Range. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without jurisdiction and in clear violation of statutory provisions. The appeal period for the impugned order had already expired by the time the writ petition was filed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 24.01.2025, passed by the respondent, is without jurisdiction and in violation of statutory provisions, warranting quashing under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the order was passed without jurisdiction and in violation of statutory provisions, implying a procedural or substantive illegality that justified interference by the High Court. The petitioner sought to quash the order on these grounds. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent revenue authority. However, the court's subsequent directions suggest that the revenue's primary concern would be the recovery of tax and adherence to procedural requirements for appeal.