M/S Ayyanar Industries vs. Superintendent Of CGST And C.Excise
Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Ayyanar Industries, represented by its Proprietor Pandi Ravichandran, filed a writ petition challenging an order in Form GST DRC 07 dated March 31, 2023, as modified by a corrigendum dated October 3, 2023. The petitioner sought to quash this order, contending it was without jurisdiction and violated statutory provisions. The petitioner also requested a fresh order after considering their replies and affording a personal hearing. The respondents were the Superintendent of CGST and Central Excise and the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Appeals). The Court suo motu impleaded the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Appeals) as the second respondent.
Held
The Court disposed of the Writ Petition without delving into the merits of the case. The petitioner was permitted to file a statutory appeal before the Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Appeals), Madurai (later corrected to Joint Commissioner/Additional Commissioner of GST and Central Excise). The petitioner was granted 30 days from the date of receipt of the order to file this appeal. The appellate authority was directed to entertain the appeal and dispose of it on merits within two months thereafter, without reference to the limitation period. The Court did not decide on the jurisdictional validity or statutory compliance of the impugned order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order in Form GST DRC 07 dated March 31, 2023, as modified by the corrigendum dated October 3, 2023, is liable to be quashed for being without jurisdiction and in violation of statutory provisions? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order suffered from jurisdictional defects and clear violations of statutory provisions. They sought to quash the order and have a fresh one passed after considering their submissions and providing a personal hearing. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents on the merits of the case. However, the Court considered the submissions made by both sides.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.07.2024 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.12736 & 12737 of 2024 M/s.Ayyanar Industries, Represented by its Proprietor Pandi Ravichandran. ... Petitioner Vs. 1.Superintendent of CGST and C.Excise, Madurai North Range, Madurai-II Division, 3rd Floor, No.5, V.P.Rathinasamy Nadar Road, Bibikulam, Madurai – 625 002. 2.The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Appeals), O/o the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Appeals), Coimbatore, Circuit Office, Madurai, 4, Lal Bahadur Shashtri Marg, C.R.Buildings, Madurai – 625 002. ... Respondents (R2 is suo motu impleaded vide order dated 02.07.2024 in W.P.(MD)No.14495 of 2024) 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in the impugned order in Form GST DRC 07 No.MDU-GST-SUP-10-2023 dated 31.03.2023 read with corrigendum dated 03.10.2023 issued by the respondent and quash the same is wholly without juri iction
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.