M/S Shri Ram Plastics Through Its Partner Shri Pramod Kumar Agrawal vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the petitioner to submit a copy of the writ petition, written pleadings, and a certified copy of the High Court's order to the appellate authority. The appellate authority (Joint Commissioner, CGST) was directed to consider the petitioner's case objectively after hearing both parties and decide the appeal in accordance with the law. This decision was to be made expeditiously, preferably within two weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of the order. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, and the appeal would be decided on its own merits. The Court also noted the respondent's submission that the appellate authority would consider all facts and legal positions and pass a reasoned order.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Shri Ram Plastics, filed a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior. The petitioner is engaged in manufacturing WARP Knit Fabric used for Agriculture Green Sheds. Previously, the Principal Commissioner, CGST, initiated suo motu revision and cancelled a refund order. Subsequently, the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner was directed to recover the refund. A fresh show cause notice was issued, which the petitioner challenged via a writ petition (No. 5720/2023). That petition directed the petitioner to present arguments before the appellate authority, the Joint Commissioner CGST. As the appeal remained pending, the petitioner sought a direction for its early and objective consideration on merits.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority (Respondent No. 3) should be directed to decide Appeal No. AD230524014395D objectively, considering the grounds, additional submissions, and documents filed by the petitioner, including those concerning alleged discrimination due to inverted duty structure benefits for similar products? 2. Whether the appellate authority should be directed not to be influenced by prior orders passed by the Principal Commissioner (Annexure P/2) and another order (Annexure P/1) taken up by the department as per directions of Respondent No. 2? 3. Whether the appellate authority should be directed to decide the appeal within a stipulated period? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the appeal is sub-judice and sought a writ of mandamus directing the appellate authority to decide the appeal objectively, considering all grounds, additional submissions, judgments, notifications, and GST Council decisions. They specifically requested the appellate authority not to be influenced by prior orders and to decide the appeal expeditiously. The petitioner also highlighted alleged discrimination regarding the inverted duty structure. Revenue's Arguments: The respondent opposed the relief claimed, noting that the petition was filed subsequent to the appeal. However, the respondent fairly submitted that the appellate authority would consider all facts and legal positions and pass a reasoned order after hearing both sides.