A.V. Ginning And Pressing Factory Through Its Partner Vinod Madhukar Bombale vs. The Commissioner Of CGST And Others

Held

The Court allowed the Writ Petition partly. The primary finding is that the impugned order dated 30.08.2023, passed by Respondent No.2-Authority, should be quashed and set aside upon the Petitioner depositing Rs.7,000/- with Respondent No.2 by 15.10.2025. The Court reasoned that this approach aligns with previous orders passed in similar writ petitions, where parties were relegated back to the original authority for a decision on merits, often based on concessions from the Revenue. The proceedings are remitted back to Respondent No.2-Authority. The Petitioner is directed to appear before Respondent No.2 on 15.10.2025 with tax returns for the relevant period. Respondent No.2 is to consider the record, follow due procedure, and pass an appropriate order within 30 days from the date of the order, subject to permissible rules. The ratio is that in the absence of a functional Appellate Tribunal, and in line with judicial precedent and concessions, High Courts can direct remittal of matters to the original authority for a fresh decision on merits, subject to certain conditions.

Facts

The Petitioner, A.v. Ginning And Pressing Factory, through its Partner Vinod Madhukar Bombale, filed a Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad. The Respondent is the Commissioner of CGST and others. The Petitioner is challenging an order dated 30.08.2023, passed by Respondent No.2-Authority. The procedural history indicates that while an Appellate Tribunal has not been established, the Petitioner is expected to approach the High Court within the prescribed limitation period. However, in similar matters, the Court has previously, based on concessions from the learned AGP, relegated petitioners back to Respondent No.2 for a decision on merits.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner is required to approach the High Court within a prescribed period of limitation, despite the absence of an Appellate Tribunal, or if the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the matter directly? 2. Whether the impugned order dated 30.08.2023, passed by Respondent No.2-Authority, should be quashed and set aside, and the proceedings remitted back for reconsideration on merits? Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner implicitly argues for the High Court's jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition, given the lack of an established Appellate Tribunal, and seeks a remand for a decision on merits. The Petitioner relies on previous orders passed by this Court in similar writ petitions. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through the learned AGP, strongly objects to the allowance of the Petition, asserting that the Petitioner must adhere to the prescribed period of limitation for approaching the High Court, even in the absence of an Appellate Tribunal.