M/S. Amala Traders vs. The Superintendent Of CGST And Central Excise

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Amala Traders, represented by its Proprietor, Vijil Sathyaraj, filed a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Original No.GST/TNVL/SUPDT/MTM/54/2023 dated 14.12.2023, passed by the Superintendent of CGST and Central Excise, Marthandham Range. The petitioner sought to quash this order and requested a fresh assessment after being afforded sufficient opportunity. The petitioner's bank account was frozen pursuant to the impugned order. The petitioner also stated that they had availed an Amnesty Scheme by depositing the requisite amount and that 60% of the disputed tax had been appropriated in the impugned order. The petitioner was aggrieved by the recovery proceedings initiated by the respondent.

Held

The Court noted that the details of the Amnesty Scheme and the attachment of bank accounts were not forthcoming in the impugned order. However, the Court observed that since the petitioner had opted for the Amnesty Scheme, there was no scope for entertaining the writ petition challenging the impugned order itself. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court again for appropriate relief specifically concerning the attachment of their bank account. The Court did not delve into the merits of the impugned order or the alleged illegality and arbitrariness. The operative direction was to allow the petitioner to seek relief regarding the bank account attachment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 14.12.2023, passed by the Superintendent of CGST and Central Excise, is illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, warranting its quashing and a fresh assessment with opportunity? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the impugned order was illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction. They highlighted that their bank account was frozen as a consequence of this order. Furthermore, the petitioner claimed to have availed an Amnesty Scheme by depositing the required amount and that a significant portion (60%) of the disputed tax was already appropriated. They were aggrieved by the recovery proceedings initiated based on the impugned order. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel, took notice. The judgment does not explicitly record any specific arguments made by the respondent in defense of the impugned order or in opposition to the petitioner's claims, beyond acknowledging their appearance.