Pt. Obm Drilchem vs. Union Of INDIA Through Secretary And Ors

Held

The Court declined to entertain the writ petition, relegating the Petitioner to the alternate remedy of appeal against the Order-in-Original (O-I-O). The Court reasoned that while no appeal might lie directly against the Notification dated December 28, 2023, all other grounds, including those concerning IGST, can be raised in the statutory appeal. If the Appellate Authority grants relief, the challenge to the Notification might become unnecessary. The Court granted the Petitioner liberty to file an appeal against the O-I-O within four weeks from the date of the order. If the appeal is filed within this period and all legal formalities are complied with, the Appellate Authority must consider it on merits without being deterred by the limitation issue, as the Petitioner had been bona fide pursuing the writ petition. The Petitioner also retains liberty to challenge the Notification dated December 28, 2023, if no relief is obtained through the statutory remedies. All contentions on merits are left open.

Facts

The Petitioner, PT. OBM Drilchem, challenged an Order-in-Original (O-I-O) dated August 26, 2024, passed by Respondent No. 5, and a Notification dated December 28, 2023, issued by Respondent No. 3, which purportedly extended the limitation period for passing a final order for the Financial Year 2019-2020. The Petitioner argued that while an appeal against the O-I-O is available, no appeal lies against the Notification. The Petitioner also contended that no IGST is payable on imported goods under the IGST Act, although it might be payable under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The Court noted that grounds regarding IGST could be raised in an appeal against the O-I-O.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner can challenge the Notification dated December 28, 2023, directly before this Court, or if it must be raised in an appeal against the Order-in-Original. 2. Whether IGST on imported goods is payable under the IGST Act, 1975. Petitioner's arguments: The Petitioner contended that no appeal can be filed against the Notification dated December 28, 2023. They also argued that no IGST on imported goods is payable under the IGST Act, though it may be payable under the Customs Tariff Act of 1975. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the Revenue or State regarding the maintainability of the writ petition or the IGST issue. However, the Court's observations imply that grounds other than the challenge to the Notification can be raised in an appeal.