K.Sasikala vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise

Held

The Court noted the submission made by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent that the petitioner has an available appeal remedy before the appellate Commissioner under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. The Court directed that all grounds raised in the writ petition could be presented in the appeal. The appellate authority was instructed to entertain the appeal if filed within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order, irrespective of the limitation period, and to dispose of it in accordance with the law within four months thereafter. No costs were awarded.

Facts

The petitioner, K. Sasikala, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court seeking to quash an impugned proceeding dated 27.06.2022, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Trichy I Division. The petitioner contended that the order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, as she was not provided with sufficient opportunity to present her case. The respondent revenue authority argued that a show cause notice was issued prior to the impugned order, and therefore, the order was valid. The respondent also pointed out that the petitioner had an alternative appellate remedy under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 27.06.2022, passed by the respondent, is liable to be quashed for violation of the principles of natural justice due to insufficient opportunity provided to the petitioner? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without affording sufficient opportunity, thus violating the principles of natural justice, making the order liable for setting aside. Respondent's contention: The respondent contended that the impugned order was passed after issuing a show cause notice, and therefore, there was no need for the Court to interfere. The respondent further submitted that the petitioner possessed an appellate remedy under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, and had approached the High Court directly without availing it.