M/S. A1 Madina Timbers And Saw Mill vs. The Superintendent

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. A1 Madina Timbers and Saw Mill, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an assessment order dated 28.12.2023, passed by the Superintendent, Office of Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Madurai-II Division. The assessment order pertains to the financial year 2018-2019. The petitioner contended that the assessment order was passed based on Notification No.09/2023, dated 31.03.2023, which allegedly violates the limitation period prescribed under Section 73(10) of the GST Act. Furthermore, the petitioner noted that this very notification is under challenge in another writ petition before the same Court, where an interim stay has been granted on grounds of limitation. The respondent revenue authority argued that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act.

Held

The Court noted the submission by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent that the petitioner possesses an appeal remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act before the Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Appeals), Coimbatore, Circuit Office at Madurai. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of by granting the petitioner liberty to approach the appellate authority. The Court directed that all grounds raised in the writ petition, including the grounds of limitation and the challenge to Notification No.09/2023, can be raised before the appellate authority. The Court further stipulated that if an appeal is filed within two weeks from the receipt of the order, the appellate authority shall entertain it without reference to the period of limitation and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law within two months thereafter. No order as to costs was made.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 28.12.2023, passed for the financial year 2018-2019, is barred by limitation as it was issued based on Notification No.09/2023, dated 31.03.2023, which allegedly violates Section 73(10) of the GST Act? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment order is barred by limitation because it was passed based on Notification No.09/2023, dated 31.03.2023. They further contended that this notification itself is under challenge before the High Court in W.P.No.33343 of 2023, and an interim stay has been granted on grounds of limitation, making the impugned order liable to be set aside. Respondent's Contention: The respondent argued that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act before the Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Appeals). They submitted that the petitioner has approached the High Court directly without availing this appellate remedy.