Chidambara Karthikeyan S vs. The Joint Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, S. Chidambara Karthikeyan, filed a writ petition challenging the Order-in-Original No. 09/JC/ST/2021 (DE NOVO) dated 12.07.2021, passed by the Joint Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Tirunelveli (the respondent). This impugned order was issued pursuant to an order by the Commissioner (Appeals) which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against an earlier Order-in-Original. The Commissioner (Appeals) had remitted the case back to the respondent for fresh orders based on certain observations. The petitioner had also filed an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) challenging the basis of the remand order, which was pending adjudication. The petitioner argued that passing the impugned order was unjustified while the remand order itself was under challenge before the Tribunal.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition. The Court held that there was no justification for the respondent to pass the impugned Order-in-Original No. 09/JC/ST/2021 (DE NOVO) dated 12.07.2021. The reasoning was that the petitioner had challenged the basis of the remand order before the CESTAT, and the de-novo adjudication was predicated on this remand. Therefore, proceeding with the de-novo order while the remand itself was under challenge was deemed inappropriate. The Court observed that it was open for the respondent to expedite the proceedings before the CESTAT if the pendency of the appeal was an impediment to recovering the amount from the petitioner. The operative direction was to quash the impugned order. No costs were imposed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent was justified in passing the impugned Order-in-Original No. 09/JC/ST/2021 (DE NOVO) dated 12.07.2021 when the very basis of the remand order, which necessitated the de-novo adjudication, was under challenge before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT)? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that passing the impugned order was unjustified because the remand order, which directed the respondent to pass fresh orders, was itself being challenged before the CESTAT. The petitioner argued that the respondent should not have proceeded with the de-novo adjudication while the validity of the remand was in question. The petitioner also argued that the respondent's action was unwarranted, especially since the CESTAT had not granted any stay on the composite order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The petitioner suggested that if pendency of proceedings was an impediment to recovering the amount, the respondent could expedite the proceedings before the Tribunal. Respondent's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent. However, the respondent passed the impugned order, implying a stance that they were empowered to proceed with the de-novo adjudication.