M/S. Priya Super Market vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Priya Super Market, represented by its Managing Partner, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The petition challenged an Order-in-Original No.18/AC/GST/2024 dated 28.03.2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Tirunelveli. This order confirmed a demand proposed in a prior show cause notice. The tax period under dispute was May 2018 to March 2019. The petitioner had participated in the proceedings and filed a reply to the show cause notice. The Court noted that the impugned order was detailed and that the petitioner had an alternative remedy.

Held

The Court held that it found no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the first respondent. The reasoning was based on the fact that the petitioner had participated in the show cause proceedings and filed a detailed reply, and that the impugned order itself was a detailed one. The Court concluded that the petitioner had an alternative remedy by way of filing an appeal before the Joint Commissioner of CGST (Appeals), Madurai. Therefore, the Court dismissed the writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal within 30 days from the date of the order. The Joint Commissioner of CGST (Appeals) was suo motu impleaded as the second respondent and directed to consider the appeal on merits and in accordance with law if filed within the stipulated time. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned Order-in-Original No.18/AC/GST/2024 dated 28.03.2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, is liable to be quashed on merits. The petitioner contended that the order should be quashed. The respondents, represented by the Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, argued that the order was detailed and confirmed the demand after the petitioner participated in the proceedings. The Court did not record specific arguments from either side regarding the merits of the demand or the procedural aspects beyond the petitioner's participation and the order's detail.