M/S.Akil Agencies vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise

Facts

M/s. Akil Agencies, represented by its Proprietor S. Ramamoorthy, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Thanjavur Division. The order under challenge is identified by file number GEXCOM/ADJN/GST/4307/2023-CGST and order number 04/2024-GST, dated April 19, 2024. The petitioner sought to quash this order, deeming it illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction. The respondent is the Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history involves the filing of this writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order should be remitted back to the respondent for fresh consideration. This decision was based on the fact that the legislation has accepted recommendations from the 53rd GST Council's Meeting held on June 22, 2024, by incorporating relevant clauses into the Finance (No.2) Bill, 2024. The Court noted that similar orders in other cases with similar circumstances have been quashed and remitted. The reasoning is that the Finance Act, 2024, and the subsequent amendment of the TNGST Act, 2017, by the State Legislative Assembly, will impact the provisions under which the original order was passed. Therefore, the respondent is directed to pass a fresh final order on merits only after the Finance Bills are passed by the Parliament and the State Legislative Assembly. The ratio is that orders passed under existing provisions should be reviewed in light of subsequent legislative amendments arising from GST Council recommendations.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated April 19, 2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, is illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, warranting quashing under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? (Question of law and fact, concerning the validity of the respondent's action). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argues that the impugned order should be quashed. While specific arguments are not detailed, the prayer itself indicates a challenge to the legality, arbitrariness, and jurisdiction of the order. Respondent's contention: The respondent, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel, is defending the impugned order. However, the specific arguments or legal provisions relied upon by the respondent are not recorded in the judgment. The Court's decision to remit the matter suggests that the respondent's order may have been affected by subsequent legislative developments.