M/S Anita Packaging vs. Assistant Commissioner (St)

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Anita Packaging, approached the Telangana High Court challenging an Order in Original and a Show Cause Notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) under Section 73 of the CGST Act for the tax period 2020-21. The petitioner claimed that its former tax consultant failed to inform it about the impugned order, and it only became aware of it upon engaging a new consultant. The petitioner sought to set aside the order and notice, alleging violations of natural justice and lack of merit. The respondents included the Assistant Commissioner (ST), the State of Telangana, the Union of India, and the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC).

Held

The Court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's contentions regarding violations of natural justice or the sustainability of the impugned order. Instead, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the impugned order within a period of two weeks. This liberty included filing a delay condonation application. The Court directed that the appellate authority should consider the question of delay sympathetically, taking into account the circumstances presented by the petitioner, and if satisfied with the delay, proceed to decide the appeal on its merits in accordance with the law. The Court explicitly stated that it did not wish to comment on the merits of the contentions raised by the parties. The writ petition was disposed of with this liberty granted.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned Order in Original and Show Cause Notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) under Section 73 of the CGST Act for the tax period 2020-21 are liable to be set aside as a nullity due to alleged violations of the principles of natural justice and being unsustainable on merits? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned notices and order were issued in violation of the principles of natural justice and were unsustainable on merits. The petitioner also stated that it came to know about the order only after engaging a new tax consultant, implying a lack of proper communication or procedural fairness. Revenue's contention: The respondents, through their counsel, did not directly address the merits of the petitioner's claims regarding natural justice or the sustainability of the order. Instead, they acknowledged the petitioner's liberty to prefer an appeal.