2022 (2) TMI 899 - HC - Central Excise

High Court grants writ petition, quashes order, directs fresh consideration.

Avana Logistek Limited [Formerly Known as Shreyas Relay Systems Ltd.] Versus Union of India The Joint Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Commerce, The Joint Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice & Company Affairs, Mumbai, Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Navi Mumbai

The High Court allowed the writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash an order confirming a demand raised by Respondent No.2. The Court quashed ... Remanding the matter - whether the revenue is agreeable for remand of the matter? - HELD THAT:- In view of the instructions received by the learned counsel from the Authority vide email dated 18th February 2022, impugned Order dated 17th February 2021 confirming the demand raised vide the SOD dated 25th July 2019 is quashed and set-aside. The proceedings are restored before the Respondent No.2 for deciding the matter afresh in accordance with law and without being influenced by the observations made and the conclusions drawn in the impugned Order dated 17th February 2021. It is made clear that, all questions of fact and law are kept open. The Respondent No.2 is directed to decide the matter expeditiously and shall make an endeavour to dispose of the matter on or before 30th June 2022. The Order that would be passed by the Respondent No.2 shall be communicated to the Petitioner within one week from the date of passing of such Order - Petition allowed. Issues involved:Petition under Article 226 seeking writ of certiorari to quash an order confirming a demand raised, agreement for remand of the matter, quashing of the impugned order, restoration of proceedings, directions for expeditious disposal, communication of the order, liberty to file appropriate proceedings, keeping all questions of fact and law open, no expression of views on merits, and allowance of the writ petition.Analysis:1. The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 seeking a writ of certiorari to quash an order confirming a demand raised by the Respondent No.2. The High Court heard both parties and adjourned the matter to allow the revenue to consider remanding the matter. The Respondent No.2 agreed to remand the matter back to the Competent Authority for fresh consideration, keeping all questions of law open. The High Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 17th February 2021, directing the matter to be decided afresh in accordance with the law without being influenced by the previous observations. The High Court made it clear that all questions of fact and law are to be kept open.2. The High Court directed the Respondent No.2 to decide the matter expeditiously and make efforts to dispose of it by 30th June 2022. The order passed by the Respondent No.2 should be communicated to the Petitioner within one week. If the order goes against the Petitioner, they have the liberty to file appropriate proceedings. The Court emphasized that it did not express any views on the merits of the matter and kept all contentions of both parties open.3. Ultimately, the writ petition was allowed in the specified terms, and the rule was made absolute with no order as to costs. The judgment reflects a thorough analysis of the issues raised, ensuring a fair and just outcome based on legal principles and procedural requirements.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal aspects and procedural steps taken by the High Court in addressing the issues raised in the petition under Article 226.