Avana Logistek Limited Formerly Known As Shreyas Relay Systems LTD. vs. Union Of INDIA Through The Joint Secretary Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Commerce And Anr

Held

The Court held that in view of the Respondent No. 2's agreement to remand the matter, the impugned Order dated 17th February 2021, which confirmed the demand raised by the SOD dated 25th July 2019, is quashed and set aside. The proceedings are restored before Respondent No. 2 for deciding the matter afresh in accordance with law, without being influenced by the observations and conclusions in the impugned order. The Court explicitly stated that all questions of fact and law are kept open, and it has not expressed any views on the merits of the matter. Respondent No. 2 is directed to decide the matter expeditiously, preferably on or before 30th June 2022. The order passed by Respondent No. 2 shall be communicated to the Petitioner within one week of its passing. The Petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate proceedings if the order goes adverse. The ratio decidendi is that when revenue consents to a remand for fresh consideration, the High Court will typically grant it, preserving all contentions for both parties.

Facts

The Petitioner, Avana Logistek Limited, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an order dated 17th February 2021 passed by Respondent No. 2, the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise. This order confirmed a demand raised by the revenue authority via a Show Cause Notice (SOD) dated 25th July 2019. The Petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the impugned order. During the proceedings, the Court inquired if the revenue was agreeable to a remand of the matter. The revenue's counsel, based on instructions received via email, informed the Court that the Commissioner CGST and Central Excise, Navi Mumbai, agreed to remand the matter back to the Competent Authority for fresh consideration.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 17th February 2021, passed by Respondent No. 2, confirming the demand raised vide the SOD dated 25th July 2019, is liable to be quashed and set aside? Petitioner's contention: The Petitioner sought the quashing of the order. The judgment does not explicitly record the Petitioner's detailed arguments but implies a challenge to the demand and the order confirming it. Revenue's contention: The Respondent No. 2 (Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise) initially passed the order confirming the demand. However, during the hearing, the revenue agreed to a remand of the matter back to the Competent Authority for fresh consideration, indicating a concession or agreement to reconsider the issue without prejudice to the merits.