M/S.Konark Technologies vs. The Assistant Commissioner

Held

The Court, while acknowledging the respondent's arguments regarding the merits of the petition and the time-barred appellate remedy, decided to balance the interests of both parties. The Court set aside the impugned order dated 16.06.2022. The case was remitted back to the respondent to pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law. This was made conditional upon the petitioner depositing Rs.75,000/- as security, which would be subject to adjustment or refund based on the final outcome. The Court directed that the quashed order would be treated as an addendum to the show cause notices. The petitioner was given 30 days from the receipt of the order to file a reply, and the respondent was directed to pass a fresh order within three months thereafter, ensuring the petitioner was heard before the final decision. The ratio decidendi is that in cases where a petitioner claims lack of awareness of proceedings and the appellate remedy is time-barred, the High Court may, in the interest of justice and to balance parties' interests, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter for fresh consideration, subject to certain conditions like depositing a security amount.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.Konark Technologies, represented by its Proprietor, R.C.Balamurali, filed a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Original No.151/2022-ST Adjn., dated 16.06.2022, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Trichy I Division. The petitioner claimed to be unaware of the impugned order, stating that their business was closed in 2017 and they had since taken up employment elsewhere. The petitioner contended they were unaware of the proceedings initiated against them. The respondent argued that the writ petition was devoid of merits and the appellate remedy was time-barred, citing Supreme Court decisions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 16.06.2022, passed by the Respondent, is liable to be quashed on the grounds of the petitioner's alleged lack of awareness and closure of business prior to the proceedings. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that they were unaware of the impugned order and the proceedings initiated against them. They contended that their business had been closed since 2017, and they had subsequently taken up employment, making them unaware of any ongoing tax proceedings. They sought to quash the order as arbitrary. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent argued that the writ petition was devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. They relied on the Supreme Court decision in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and others Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited (2020 SCC Online SC 440). Furthermore, the respondent contended that the appellate remedy available to the petitioner was time-barred, citing the Supreme Court decision in Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Jamshedpur (2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (S.C)).