M/S Adarshbandhu Construction Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Adarshbandhu Construction Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging an order dated 30.05.2022 passed by the Commissioner (Appeal), Customs, Central Goods & Service Tax and Central Excise, Patna. The respondents included the Union of India, the Designated Committee for the Sabka Viswas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme 2019, the Commissioner (Appeal), and the Assistant Commissioner-cum-Adjudicating Authority. The petitioner sought specific reliefs, but the High Court noted that the impugned order was appealable. Consequently, the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the present petition.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 30.05.2022, passed by the Commissioner (Appeal), Customs, Central Goods & Service Tax and Central Excise, Patna, was indeed appealable. Therefore, the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the present writ petition. The Court granted the petitioner liberty to prefer an appeal before the appropriate appellate authority within a period of four weeks from the date of the order. The Court further directed that the issue of limitation shall not be an impediment to the adjudication of the appeal on merits if filed within the stipulated period. Both parties were granted an opportunity to place all essential documents and materials on record. The Appellate Authority was directed to decide the appeal on merits, in compliance with the principles of natural justice, and pass a reasoned and speaking order. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, and all issues were left open. Proceedings could be conducted through digital mode if necessary.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 30.05.2022 passed by the Commissioner (Appeal) is appealable under the relevant provisions of GST law? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner sought reliefs from the High Court. However, the Court's observation that the order was appealable implies that the petitioner's initial recourse to the High Court via a writ petition was not the appropriate procedural step if an appeal remedy was available. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by Dr. K.N. Singh, A.S.G., and Mr. Anshuman Singh, did not explicitly argue on the maintainability of the writ petition or the appealability of the order in the provided text. Their appearance indicates they were prepared to defend the impugned order, but the judgment focuses on the procedural aspect of the petitioner's remedy.