Case Details: Panjon Ltd. Versus Commissioner CGST and Central Excise (2025) 28 Centax 218 (M.P.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari & Gajendra Singh, JJ.
- Shri H.Y. Mehta, learned counsel for the Petitioner.
- Shri Prasanna Prasad, learned counsel for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioners-assessees filed writ petitions challenging the Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act, citing non-compliance with Rule 142, as the SCN was not uploaded electronically, and asserting that it was issued without jurisdiction, as it related to “circular trading” rather than tax evasion, making Section 74 inapplicable. Despite these ongoing legal proceedings, the respondent-tax officer issued a final order against the petitioners. In response, the petitioners sought an amendment to challenge the final order, which was allowed. Additionally, the petitioners highlighted that their right to cross-examine witnesses was denied, and the respondents had failed to file a reply on multiple occasions, which they claimed violated the principles of natural justice.
High Court Held
The Hon’ble High Court found prima facie merit in the petitioners’ claims, especially regarding procedural errors and jurisdictional issues. The Court held that if the final order was not stayed, the petitioners would face irreparable harm. Consequently, the Court stayed the final order and admitted the petitions for final hearing. The respondents were directed to file their reply, and the petitioners were allowed to file a rejoinder. The matter was listed for final hearing, with the stay on the final order remaining in effect until adjudication.
List of Instructions Cited
- CBIC Instruction No. 05/2023-GST dated 13.12.2023.
