R R Shipping Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And Ors

Held

The Court declined to entertain the writ petition, choosing to relegate the Petitioner to the alternate remedy of appeal against the Order-in-Original. The Court reasoned that while no appeal might lie against the Notifications extending the limitation, all other grounds, including the challenge to IGST on imported goods, could be raised in the statutory appeal. If the Appellate Authority granted relief, the challenge to the Notifications might become unnecessary. The Court reserved liberty for the Petitioner to challenge the Notifications dated 28 December 2023 and 16 January 2024 if no relief was obtained through the statutory appeal. The Petitioner was granted four weeks to institute the appeal, and the Appellate Authority was directed to consider it on merits without raising the issue of limitation, given the Petitioner's bona fide pursuit of the writ petition. All contentions on merits were left open.

Facts

The Petitioner, R. R. Shipping Private Limited, challenged an Order-in-Original (O-I-O) dated 29 August 2024, passed by Respondent No. 5. The Petitioner also challenged Notifications dated 28 December 2023 and 16 January 2024, issued by Respondent No. 3, which purportedly extended the limitation period for passing a final order concerning the Financial Year 2019-2020. While acknowledging the existence of a statutory appeal against the O-I-O, the Petitioner argued that no appeal lay against the impugned Notifications. The Petitioner further contended that no IGST was payable on imported goods under the IGST Act, though it might be payable under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner has a valid challenge to the Notifications dated 28 December 2023 and 16 January 2024, which purport to extend the limitation for passing a final order under the relevant GST provisions, and if so, can this challenge be entertained directly by the High Court in writ jurisdiction? 2. Whether IGST is payable on imported goods under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) Act, 1975, or if such liability arises solely under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975? Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner argued that no appeal lies against the Notifications extending the limitation period and that IGST is not payable on imported goods under the IGST Act. The Petitioner sought to challenge these aspects directly. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the Revenue regarding the maintainability of the writ petition or the merits of the IGST issue. However, the Court's decision implies that the Revenue would likely rely on the availability of statutory remedies.