Periyannan Rajendran vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise
Facts
The petitioner, Periyannan Rajendran, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an Order-in-Original No. MAD-ST-ASC-198-2022 dated December 27, 2022, passed by the First Respondent, the Deputy Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, Madurai II Division. The petitioner sought to quash this order and requested a re-hearing of the entire issue. The respondents were the Deputy Commissioners of Central GST & Central Excise (Madurai I and II Divisions), the Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, and the Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise (Appeals). The impugned order indicated that any aggrieved person could appeal to the Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Appeals).
Held
The Court noted that the impugned Order-in-Original itself provided a mechanism for appeal to the Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Appeals). The petitioner's counsel sought permission to withdraw the writ petition to avail this appellate remedy. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn, granting the petitioner the liberty to pursue the appellate procedure. The Court clarified that for the purpose of calculating the limitation period for filing the appeal, the period from the date of filing the writ petition (February 1, 2023) until the date the certified copy of the order is made ready by the Registry would be excluded. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed, and no costs were awarded.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to have the Order-in-Original No. MAD-ST-ASC-198-2022 dated 27.12.2022 quashed and be granted a re-hearing by the First Respondent. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner, through their counsel, sought permission from the Court to withdraw the writ petition. This withdrawal was sought with the liberty to pursue the alternative remedy of appeal as indicated in the impugned order. The petitioner's counsel made an endorsement to this effect in the court record. Respondents' Contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the respondents' side regarding the merits of the case. Their counsel was present and heard.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 03.02.2023
C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU and W.M.P. (MD) No. 1979 of 2023 Periyannan Rajendran
... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Deputy Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, Madurai II Division, Bibikulam, Madurai – 625 002. 2.The Deputy Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, Madurai I Division, Bibikulam, Madurai – 625 002. 3.The Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, Central Revenue Buildings, Bibikulam, Madurai – 625 002. 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise (Appeals) Coimbatore, Circuit Office at Madurai, Central Revenue Buildings, Bibikulam, Madurai – 625 002. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in respect of impugned Order - in - original No. MAD-ST-ASC-198-2022 dated 27.12.2022 in C.No. IV/09/72/2020-ST -Adjn. passed by the First Respondent and quash the same and be please
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.