M/S.Royal Communications vs. The Superintendent Of Central GST And Central Excise

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.Royal Communications, represented by its Proprietor Ahamed Rafeek, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The petitioner sought to quash an assessment order dated 28.02.2023, passed by the Superintendent of Central GST & Central Excise, Sivakasi-1 Range, for the assessment year 2017-18. The petitioner contended that the order was illegal and a gross violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically requesting an opportunity for a personal hearing. The respondents, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel, opposed the writ petition on the grounds that it was filed long after the expiry of the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority.

Held

The Court, while acknowledging the respondents' contention regarding the time-barred nature of the writ petition and the appellate remedy, exercised its discretion in favour of the petitioner. The Court found that the petitioner might have a case to substantiate before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Madurai. Consequently, the Court directed that the petitioner be given an opportunity to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority, who was suo motu impleaded as the second respondent. The petitioner was granted 30 days from the date of receipt of the order to file the appeal, subject to pre-depositing 25% of the disputed tax from its Electronic Cash Register. Upon compliance, the appeal was to be entertained and disposed of on merits and in accordance with law, without reference to the limitation period. The Court expressly left undecided the merits of the original assessment order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable despite being filed beyond the statutory limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the GST enactments? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned assessment order was illegal and a gross violation of the principles of natural justice, necessitating a fresh assessment after providing an opportunity for a personal hearing as per the GST Act. The petitioner sought to quash the order and direct a fresh assessment. Revenue's contention: The respondents argued that the writ petition was hopelessly time-barred and liable to be dismissed due to laches, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and others vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited. They further submitted that the appellate remedy itself was time-barred under Section 107 of the GST Enactments, referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur and others, and therefore, the writ petition should be dismissed.