M/S Aditi Industries vs. The Union Of INDIA And 2 Ors

Held

The Court held that the GST authorities, specifically Respondent No. 2 (Principal Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax), should consider the application dated June 6, 2022, submitted by the petitioner. The reasoning was based on the agreement between both learned counsels for the parties. The Court directed that a reasoned order be passed disposing of the petitioner's application. Furthermore, the Court ordered that the operation of the impugned order dated March 25, 2022, confirming the demand of Rs. 1,05,55,748/-, shall remain suspended until the authorities complete the exercise of considering the petitioner's application. No specific issue was left undecided; the Court facilitated a resolution by directing consideration of the pending application.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Aditi Industries, a partnership firm, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated March 25, 2022, passed by the Additional Commissioner, GST (Respondent No. 3). This order confirmed a demand of Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 1,05,55,748/- raised against the petitioner. The petitioner had previously filed an application on June 6, 2022, seeking a special rate, following a Supreme Court judgment and order dated April 22, 2022. However, this application remained unconsidered, and coercive recovery measures were being initiated against the petitioner. The GST authorities contended that the application was filed after the September 30 deadline of the relevant financial year.

Key Issues

1. Whether the GST authorities are obligated to consider the petitioner's application dated June 6, 2022, seeking a special rate, despite it being filed after the stipulated deadline of September 30 of the relevant financial year, and if so, what is the legal basis for such consideration? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that their application for a special rate, filed on June 6, 2022, should be considered, especially after the Supreme Court's judgment on April 22, 2022. They asserted that coercive recovery measures were being pursued without their application being addressed. Revenue's contention: The GST authorities (respondents) argued that the application was not considered because it was filed after the September 30 deadline of the relevant financial year. However, they conceded that if the Court directed them to consider the application, they would do so and pass appropriate orders.