Abi Agency vs. The Secretary TO The Government Ministry Of Finance Department

Facts

The petitioner, ABI Agency, filed a writ petition challenging an interest demand order dated December 30, 2023, passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer - II (4th respondent). The petitioner contended that the order failed to consider Section 128A of the CGST Act, which provides for waiver of interest or penalty for the period July 2017 to March 2018. The petitioner's primary grievance was that their appeal was rejected due to limitation without considering bona fide reasons for the delay. The respondents informed the court that a rectification order dated February 28, 2025, was passed under Section 161 of the CGST Act concerning the levy of interest under Section 50(1) of the CGST Act.

Held

The Court noted the submission by the learned Government Advocate that a rectification order dated February 28, 2025, had been passed under Section 161 of the TNGST Act subsequent to the impugned order dated December 30, 2023. This rectification order pertained to the levy of interest under Section 50(1) of the CGST Act. In light of this development, the Court directed the petitioner to challenge the rectification order, if they were aggrieved by it, by following the due process of law. The Court did not delve into the merits of the original impugned order or the petitioner's arguments regarding Section 128A and the appeal limitation, as the subsequent rectification order rendered the present writ petition premature or superseded. The Court explicitly left undecided the legality of the original order and the applicability of Section 128A.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated December 30, 2023, passed by the 4th respondent is illegal for failing to consider the provisions of Section 128A of the CGST Act regarding waiver of interest or penalty for the period July 2017 to March 2018, and for rejecting the petitioner's appeal due to limitation without considering bona fide reasons for the delay. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was illegal as it did not consider Section 128A of the CGST Act, which allows for waiver of interest or penalty for the specified period. They also contended that their appeal was rejected solely on grounds of limitation, without a proper consideration of the genuine reasons for the delay. Revenue's Argument: The learned Government Advocate for respondents 2 to 4 submitted that a rectification order dated February 28, 2025, was subsequently passed under Section 161 of the CGST Act with respect to the levy of interest under Section 50(1) of the CGST Act. They suggested that the petitioner should challenge this rectification order.