M/S Anish Infracon INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court did not enter into the merits of the matter, finding it appropriate to relegate the petitioner to the appellate authority. The Court noted that Section 107 of the CGST Act provides for an appeal to the Appellate Authority within three months of the order's communication. While the petitioner argued that the absence of a detailed order prevented them from filing an appeal, they had no instructions on whether they had sought a reasoned order from the adjudicating authority. The Court directed that a reasoned order, if not already supplied, be provided to the petitioner within 7 days of receiving the Court's order, and electronically within 24 hours thereafter. The Court held that all issues raised before it could be raised before the appellate authority. The disposal of the petition was on the ground of alternative remedy, and the authority was directed not to hold adversely against the petitioner due to this disposal.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Anish Infracon India Pvt. Ltd., challenged a summary order in FORM GST DRC-07 dated February 18, 2021, issued by the revenue authority. The petitioner contended that the order was passed in breach of natural justice principles and without following the procedure prescribed under Section 74 of the CGST Act and related Rules. The petitioner had filed a reply to a show cause notice dated January 6, 2021, concerning wrong availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) during July 1, 2017, to March 31, 2018. A demand of Rs. 81,72,530/- was raised. The petitioner argued that a detailed order was not provided, only a summary order, hindering their ability to file an appeal. They approached the High Court seeking to quash the proceedings and the summary order, and to stay recovery proceedings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the summary order in FORM GST DRC-07 dated February 18, 2021, is liable to be quashed for non-consideration of the petitioner's submissions and violation of principles of natural justice, as argued by the petitioner? 2. Whether the proceedings are vitiated by non-compliance with the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 74 of the CGST Act and Rule 142 of the CGST Rules, as contended by the petitioner? The petitioner argued that the summary order was passed without considering their detailed reply and submissions, violating principles of natural justice. They also contended that the mandatory procedure under Section 74 and Rule 142 was not followed, and the lack of a detailed order prevented them from availing the statutory remedy of appeal. The revenue did not record any specific arguments in the judgment.