Marimuthu .K vs. The Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise

Facts

The petitioner, K. Marimuthu, filed two writ petitions before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. In WP(MD) No. 12115 of 2023, the petitioner challenged a recovery notice dated April 24, 2023, issued by the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Trichy I Division. The petitioner sought to quash this notice, release his attached bank account, and be permitted to file an appeal against an Order-in-Original No. 201/2022 dated June 27, 2022. The petitioner contended that the recovery and attachment were arbitrary, violated principles of natural justice, and were issued without considering his cancer ailment, which prevented him from paying service tax liabilities for the period April 1, 2015, to June 30, 2017. The respondents argued that the bank attachment could not be released as the petitioner had not substantiated the total amount in the account and that the prayer was not maintainable. WP(MD) No. 12116 of 2023 challenged the Order-in-Original No. 201/2022-ST dated June 27, 2022.

Held

The Court acknowledged that the petitioner was suffering from cancer and that the respondents had attached his bank account due to default in paying service tax, leading to the issuance of the recovery notice. Considering the petitioner's ailment and relying on previous High Court orders that allowed petitioners to approach statutory authorities beyond the period of limitation, the Court permitted the petitioner to file an appeal before the statutory authority within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Court clarified that the request to release the bank attachment should be raised before the appellate authority. Accordingly, WP(MD) No. 12115 of 2023 was disposed of with this direction. For WP(MD) No. 12116 of 2023, the petitioner's counsel sought permission to withdraw the writ petition, which was granted. The Court noted that no specific decision was made on the merits of the Order-in-Original itself in WP(MD) No. 12115 of 2023, as the primary direction was to allow the filing of an appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the recovery notice dated 24.04.2023 and the bank attachment are arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice, and Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, considering the petitioner's ailment? (Mixed law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and constitutional provisions). 2. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to file an appeal against Order-in-Original No. 201/2022 dated 27.06.2022 beyond the period of limitation? (Question of law and procedure, concerning condonation of delay). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the recovery notice and bank attachment were arbitrary and violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. He contended that the attachment was against the principles of natural justice and was made without considering his cancer ailment, which led to his inability to pay service tax liabilities for the period 01.04.2015 to 30.06.2017. The petitioner relied on previous High Court orders (dated 20.01.2009 in WP No. 804/2009 and 28.04.2023 in W.P. No. 13687/2023) where petitioners were permitted to approach statutory authorities beyond the limitation period. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents argued that it was not possible to release the bank attachment as the petitioner had not substantiated the total amount available in the account. They also contended that the petitioner's prayer was not maintainable.