M/S. Sunny Enterprises vs. Superintendent Of Central Tax

Held

The Court did not delve into the merits of the contentions raised by the parties. Instead, upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the impugned Order-in-Original. The Court directed that the appeal should be filed within a period of two weeks, along with a statutory pre-deposit and a delay condonation application. The petitioner was permitted to raise all available grounds of law and fact in the memo of appeal. The Court further stipulated that the appellate authority would consider the question of delay sympathetically, taking into account the facts and circumstances, and if satisfied, proceed to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with the law. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.

Facts

M/s. Sunny Enterprises (the petitioner) filed a writ petition before the Telangana High Court challenging a summary notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated September 11, 2023, issued by the Superintendent of Central Tax (the first respondent) under Section 73 of the CGST and TNGST Acts, 2017. The petitioner also challenged the consequent Order-in-Original dated December 26, 2024, which confirmed a demand of tax and penalty amounting to Rs. 10,80,354 for the tax period 2020-21. The petitioner argued that the notice and order were illegal, without jurisdiction, and failed to consider the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic. The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Key Issues

1. Whether the summary notice in Form GST DRC-01, issued without signatures, is illegal and without jurisdiction under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? 2. Whether the Order-in-Original confirming the demand of tax and penalty for the tax period 2020-21 is illegal, perverse, and unsustainable on merits for failing to consider the extraordinary circumstances prevailing due to the COVID-19 pandemic? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the impugned summary notice and the consequent Order-in-Original were illegal and without jurisdiction, citing the lack of signatures on the notice. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that the authorities failed to consider the unprecedented circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic during the tax period 2020-21, rendering the demand unsustainable. Respondents' arguments: The respondents, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, did not present specific arguments on the merits of the case during the hearing. They acknowledged the petitioner's liberty to prefer an appeal against the Order-in-Original.