M/S. Sgj Autocare PVT LTD vs. The Superintendent Of Central GST And Central Excise

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.SGJ Autocare Pvt. Ltd., filed a Writ Petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an Assessment Order dated 31.03.2023, passed by the Superintendent of Central GST and Central Excise, Palayamkottai Range. The order was issued under Order in Original No.GST/TNVL/SUPDT/PALAY/20/2023 (DIN 20230359XO0000444C2A). The petitioner sought to quash this order as illegal and devoid of merits. The respondent, the Superintendent of Central GST, was represented by counsel. The Court noted that a revision petition had been filed belatedly and contrary to a Supreme Court decision. However, considering the petitioner might have a case before the Appellate Commissioner, the Court decided to dispose of the writ petition.

Held

The Court decided to dispose of the Writ Petition by directing the petitioner to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Commissioner within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. This direction is subject to the petitioner complying with other statutory requirements, specifically concerning the pre-deposit of tax. The Court acknowledged that the petitioner might have a case to argue before the Appellate Commissioner, despite the belated filing of a revision petition which was contrary to the Supreme Court's decision in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and others Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited. The Court did not delve into the merits of the assessment order itself but facilitated the petitioner's access to the statutory appellate remedy. No costs were imposed. The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Commissioner despite the delay and contrary to the Supreme Court's decision in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and others Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 440? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner, through its writ petition, implicitly sought an opportunity to present its case before the appellate authority, suggesting a belief in the merits of its arguments. Respondent's Contention: The respondent, through its counsel, consented to the disposal of the writ petition. The Court noted the belated filing of a revision petition contrary to Supreme Court precedent, implying a potential procedural hurdle that the petitioner would need to overcome.