M/S Teddy Exports vs. The Superintendent Of GST And Central Excise

Held

The Court decided to grant relief to the petitioner despite their failure to file a written reply to the show cause notice and the lapse of the limitation period for appeal. The Court quashed the impugned assessment order dated March 13, 2024, and the corrigendum order dated September 26, 2024. The reasoning was based on the Court's inclination to extend relief under similar circumstances, as it had done in previous cases. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount within 30 days. Upon compliance, the impugned orders would be treated as an addendum/corrigendum to the original show cause notice. The petitioner was then directed to submit a reply to the show cause notice within 30 days, after which the respondent would pass a fresh order on merits after affording a personal hearing, preferably within three months. The ratio decidendi is that procedural lapses by the assessee, including failure to respond to SCNs and lapse of appeal period, may not preclude the Court from granting relief in writ jurisdiction, particularly when the assessee complies with certain conditions like partial deposit of dues. The Court expressly left undecided the merits of the assessment itself, as the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Teddy Exports, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated March 13, 2024, and a subsequent corrigendum order dated September 26, 2024, passed by the Superintendent of GST and Central Excise. These orders were issued following a show cause notice dated December 27, 2023. The petitioner admits to not filing a written reply to the show cause notice, though representatives attended a personal hearing on February 22, 2024. The petitioner acknowledged having an alternate remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST enactments but had allowed the limitation period to lapse before approaching the High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should entertain a writ petition when the petitioner has an alternate statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST enactments, especially when the limitation period for filing such an appeal has expired? 2. Whether the impugned assessment order and corrigendum order, passed in the absence of a written reply from the petitioner to the show cause notice, are liable to be quashed and set aside? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned orders were illegal and devoid of merits and sought to quash them, directing the respondent to redo the assessment proceedings. While not explicitly stated, the petition implies a challenge to the procedural fairness and the substantive correctness of the assessment. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent, represented by the Superintendent of GST and Central Excise, did not present any specific arguments in the provided text. However, the issuance of the orders and the mention of the petitioner's failure to reply to the show cause notice suggest the respondent's position was that the assessment was validly made based on the available information.