M/S.Seyad Trading Company vs. The Additional Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Seyad Trading Company, represented by its Partner S. Afzar Naina Mohamed, filed a writ petition challenging Order-in-Original No. 08/ADC/GST/2024-25 dated April 29, 2024, issued by the Additional Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Tirunelveli. The impugned order was passed for the assessment years 2018-19 to 2020-21, confirming the demand proposed in Show Cause Notice No. 33/ADC/GST/2023-24. The petitioner contended that their replies were not properly considered and the order was passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, resulting in an arbitrary award. The respondent is the Additional Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise.

Held

The Court held that a perusal of the petitioner's replies and the impugned order indicated several disputed questions involved and an apparent application of mind while passing the order. The Court stated that its concern under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is with the decision-making process, not the decision itself. The Court found that these matters are to be agitated by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the respective GST enactment. Consequently, the Court found no merits in the present writ petition. The operative direction was to dismiss the writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned Order-in-Original No. 08/ADC/GST/2024-25 dated 29.04.2024, passed by the respondent, is liable to be quashed for being without jurisdiction and in clear violation of statutory provisions, as argued by the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner's replies were properly considered and whether the principles of natural justice were violated in passing the impugned order, as contended by the petitioner? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that their replies were not properly considered and the impugned order was passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, leading to an arbitrary award. They sought to quash the order and for a fresh consideration after a personal hearing. Respondent's arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the respondent. However, the Court's observation implies that the respondent's action led to the impugned order.