Tvl. P S V S Timbers vs. The Superintendent

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. PSVS Timbers, filed a writ petition challenging an order-in-original dated February 22, 2025, passed by the Superintendent of CGST & Central Excise, Tirunelveli. The impugned order pertains to the tax period 2020-21. The petitioner received a notice on September 19, 2024, regarding discrepancies between GSTR3B and GSTR2A, to which they replied on November 8, 2024. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued on November 28, 2024. The petitioner contended that the order-in-original also considered a mismatch arising from discounts given by the supplier, which was not adequately addressed in their reply. They sought to quash the order, requesting a fresh opportunity to explain.

Held

The Court held that the issue arising from the discount, being interconnected with the mismatch of credit availed by the petitioner in GSTR3B and GSTR2A, presented a matter of merit and disputed facts. Consequently, the Court found no merit in entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court opined that such issues must be decided by the appellate authority as prescribed under the hierarchy of the TNGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017. Therefore, the writ petition was not entertained and was dismissed. However, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order, subject to complying with the pre-deposit requirement under Section 107 of the respective GST enactments within the same period. The Court expressly left undecided the merits of the tax dispute itself.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order-in-original dated 22.02.2025, passed by the Superintendent of CGST & Central Excise, is liable to be quashed on the grounds of illegality, lack of jurisdiction, and violation of the principles of natural justice, as argued by the petitioner? 2. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, or if the petitioner should pursue the statutory appellate remedy, as argued by the respondent? Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was illegal, without jurisdiction, and violated principles of natural justice. They specifically highlighted that the order considered a mismatch related to discounts, which was not fully explained in their reply, and sought a fresh opportunity to present their case. Respondent's contentions: The respondent argued that the writ petition should be dismissed as the matter involves disputed questions of fact and merit, and therefore, the petitioner should avail the statutory appellate mechanism.