Packiaraj.S.D vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise
Facts
The petitioner, S.D. Packiaraj, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an Order-in-Original No.39/2022-ST, dated March 18, 2022, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Madurai I Division. This order confirmed a demand proposed in a show cause notice dated December 16, 2020. The petitioner sought to quash this order and prevent the respondent from collecting the tax demanded. The court noted that the petitioner had an alternate statutory remedy before the appellate Commissioner under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. The writ petition was filed with a marginal delay after the petitioner received the impugned order on March 23, 2022.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner has an alternate statutory remedy before the appellate Commissioner under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. Consequently, the writ petition was not entertained directly. The Court, however, granted liberty to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal before the appellate Commissioner within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This liberty was granted subject to the petitioner depositing 20% of the disputed tax. The Court specified that this pre-deposit is 10% over and above what is contemplated under Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. If the appeal is filed within the stipulated time and with the required pre-deposit, the Commissioner is directed to entertain and dispose of the appeal on merits and in accordance with law. The issue of the merits of the impugned order itself was not decided by the High Court.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner has an effective alternate remedy against the impugned order? 2. Whether the writ petition is maintainable given the existence of an alternate remedy? The petitioner contended that the impugned order was erroneous and sought its quashing. The respondents, represented by the Deputy Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Madurai I Division, and the suo motu impleaded Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Madurai – I Division, implicitly argued for the existence of an alternate remedy. The court's decision hinges on the availability and applicability of the statutory appeal mechanism provided under the Finance Act, 1994.
Sections Cited
Section 85, Section 35-F
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 15.04.2024 CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN and W.M.P.(MD)No.19553 of 2022 S.D.Packiaraj ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Deputy Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Madurai I Division, No.5, V.P.Rathinasamy Nadar Road, Bibikulam, Madurai – 625 002. 2.The Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Madurai – I Division, No.5, V.P. Rathinasamy Nadar Road, Bibikulam, Madurai – 625 002. ... Respondents [R2 is suo motu impleaded vide order dated 15.04.2024 made in W.P.(MD)No.25473 of 2022]
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order in Original No.39/2022-ST in MAD – ST – 000 – ASC – 39/2022 – ST, dated 18.03.2022 and quash the same and consequently, forbear the first respondent to collect the tax in pursuant to the impugned order issued by the first respondent to collect tax in pursuant to the impugned order issued by the first respondent.
_____________ Page No. 1 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis For Petitioner
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.