M/S.Cherry Retail vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise

Held

The Court, without delving into the merits of the case, allowed the writ petition. The Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's Rectification Application dated June 24, 2023, in accordance with the law. This consideration was to be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the Court's order. The Court did not make any order as to costs. The operative direction was to consider the rectification application. The issue of whether the rectification application should be allowed or rejected on its merits was not decided by the Court, as it was not the subject of the present writ petition. The Court's decision was based solely on the failure of the respondents to consider the application.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Cherry Retail, represented by its Partner S. Kirubakaran, filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus. The petitioner requested the Court to direct the Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Madurai II Division, and the Superintendent of CGST and Central Excise, Madurai II Division, to consider their Rectification Application dated June 24, 2023. This application was filed to rectify Order No. MAD-ST-ASC-160/2022, dated November 11, 2022. The petitioner also sought to direct the Superintendent to withdraw a Letter dated June 1, 2023. The petitioner contended that their rectification application had not been considered by the respondents. The respondents were represented by their Senior Panel Counsel and Junior Standing Counsel.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's Rectification Application dated June 24, 2023, filed to rectify Order No. MAD-ST-ASC-160/2022 dated November 11, 2022, and pass an appropriate order considering Section 74 of the Finance Act, 1994? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that they had filed a Rectification Application on June 24, 2023, but the respondents had failed to consider it. They sought a direction from the Court to compel the respondents to act on their application. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the respondents regarding the merits of the rectification application or the delay in its consideration. They were represented by counsel who consented to the writ petition being taken up for final disposal at the admission stage.