Case Law Details
Cherry Retail Represented by its Partner Vs Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise (Madras High Court)
In a recent legal development, Cherry Retail, represented by its partner, found itself in a legal battle with the Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise. The case revolves around Cherry Retail’s Service Tax Rectification Application and the subsequent issuance of a letter by the Assistant Commissioner. This article delves into the details of the case, the Madras High Court’s judgment, and its implications.
Detailed Analysis:
The crux of this case lies in Cherry Retail’s Rectification Application, filed on June 24, 2023, aiming to rectify order No.MAD-ST-ASC-160/2022 dated November 11, 2022. The primary contention of Cherry Retail was that the Assistant Commissioner, in issuing a letter on June 1, 2023, failed to consider Section 74 of the Finance Act 1994.
Cherry Retail’s legal counsel, Mr. S. Venkatasubramaniyan, argued vehemently on behalf of the petitioner. The Assistant Commissioner, on the other hand, was represented by Mr. R. Nandakumar, the Learned Senior Panel Counsel, assisted by M/s. S. Ragaventhre, the Learned Junior Standing Counsel. The case swiftly moved to the final disposal stage, as both parties consented.
The essence of Cherry Retail’s plea was that despite filing the Rectification Application, the respondents had not given it due consideration. The Madras High Court refrained from delving into the merits of the case but issued a directive. The Court instructed the respondents to review Cherry Retail’s Rectification Application, dated June 24, 2023, in accordance with the law. They were given a deadline of six weeks from the receipt of the Court’s order to complete this review.
Conclusion:
The Madras High Court’s decision in favor of Cherry Retail marks a significant development in the ongoing dispute. While the Court did not express an opinion on the merits of the case, it upheld the importance of due process and adherence to the law. Cherry Retail now has the opportunity for a fair assessment of its Rectification Application, and the Assistant Commissioner has been directed to withdraw the letter issued on June 1, 2023.
This judgment underscores the role of the judiciary in ensuring that legal procedures are followed meticulously, and it reaffirms the principle that no one is above the law. The outcome of this case will undoubtedly have broader implications for similar matters in the realm of tax and finance law.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
1. This writ petition is filed for Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent to consider the Petitioner’s Rectification Application, dated 24.06.2023 to rectify the order No.MAD-ST-ASC-160/2022, dated 11.11.2022 and pass an appropriate order by taking into consideration Section 74 of Finance Act 1994, and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to withdraw the Letter, dated 01.06.2023 issued by the 2nd Respondent.
2. Heard Mr. S. Venkatasubramaniyan, the Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. R. Nandakumar, the Learned Senior Panel Counsel, assisted by M/s. S. Ragaventhre, the Learned Junior Standing Counsel. With their consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner has filed a Rectification Application, dated 24.06.2023, but the respondents have not considered the same.
4. Without going into the merits of the case, this Court simply directing the respondents to consider the petitioner’s Rectification Application, dated 24.06.2023 in accordance to law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the Order.
5. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
