M/S.M M S Iron Corporation vs. The Superintendent Of CGST And C Excise

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.M.M.S. Iron Corporation, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an Order-in-Original (GST/VNR-II/SUPDT/20/2023, dated 22.02.2023, Ref.No.ZD331123003010N, dated 01.11.2023) issued by the Superintendent of CGST and C. Excise, Virudhunagar. The petitioner contended that due to the proprietor's ill-health and subsequent bed rest, and the failure of a part-time accountant to manage compliance, the petitioner was unable to participate in the adjudication proceedings, leading to an ex parte order. The respondent argued that a show cause notice was issued on 21.11.2022 and that the petitioner had an alternative appeal remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017.

Held

The Court noted the submission by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent that the petitioner has an available appeal remedy before the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise (Appeals), Coimbatore (Circuit Office at Madurai) under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. The Court directed that all grounds raised in the writ petition can be raised in the appeal. If an appeal is filed within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order, the appellate authority shall entertain it without insisting on the limitation period and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law within one month thereafter. No order as to costs was made.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned Order-in-Original, issued ex parte, is liable to be quashed on the grounds of the petitioner's inability to participate in adjudication proceedings due to ill-health and accountant's failure, as per Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the ex parte order was passed without their participation due to the proprietor's severe ill-health requiring bed rest for several months and the subsequent failure of their part-time accountant to ensure statutory compliance. This prevented them from attending the adjudication proceedings, rendering the order unjust. Respondent's arguments: The respondent contended that a show cause notice was duly issued to the petitioner on 21.11.2022, and therefore, the impugned order should not be interfered with. Furthermore, the respondent highlighted that the petitioner possesses an effective alternative remedy of appeal before the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise (Appeals) under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, and has prematurely approached the High Court without exhausting this remedy.