M/S Shri Tirupati Logistics And Transport Private LTD vs. The Commissioner CGST And Central Excise And Another

Held

The Court noted that the Petitioner's application under Section 74(3)(b) of the Finance Act, 1994, was filed with the Commissioner instead of the Additional Commissioner, leading to its pendency due to a lack of jurisdiction. The Court disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the Additional Commissioner to deal with the application dated 14.10.2023, following due procedure within 60 days. The Court also granted the Petitioner liberty to request the Appellate Authority to keep pending appeal proceedings in abeyance, subject to depositing 7.5% of the assessed amount, should the Appellate Authority proceed with the appeal. The core finding is that the procedural defect of filing with the wrong authority should not prejudice the Petitioner's right to have their application considered by the correct authority.

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s Shri Tirupati Logistics and Transport Private Ltd, filed an application dated 14.10.2023 under Section 74(3)(b) of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994. This application was tendered to the Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, instead of the Additional Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Aurangabad, who had the appropriate jurisdiction. Consequently, the application remained pending. A copy of the application was subsequently submitted to the Additional Commissioner. The present writ petition was filed before the Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad.

Key Issues

1. Whether the application filed by the Petitioner under Section 74(3)(b) of the Finance Act, 1994, is maintainable before the Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, when jurisdiction lies with the Additional Commissioner. Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner argued that the application was inadvertently filed before the wrong authority due to a procedural oversight. They sought directions for the proper authority to consider the application. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not explicitly record any arguments in the judgment. However, the fact that the application was pending due to lack of jurisdiction implies the revenue's position that the initial filing was improper.