THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN Writ Petition Nos.28391 & 28392 of 2025

Common Order

:

Heard Mr. S.Viplav Simha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) appearing for respondents No.1 to 3; and Mr. B.Mukherjee, learned counsel representing Mr. N.Bhujanga Ro, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondent No.4.

2. Reference is made to the order dated 19.09.2025, which read as under:

“There is a fundamental infirmity in the description of the petitioner in the cause title, whether petitioner in W.P.No.28391 of 2025 being a private limited company should be represented by a proprietor as named therein and also whether the petitioner in W.P.No.28392 of 2025, described as an industry, is a proprietary firm or a company said to be represented by a proprietor. The certificate of registration of either of these two petitioners is not annexed.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that by a show cause notice issued upon Ashok Kumar Agarwal, proceedings under Section 73 have been conducted and concluded by passing the impugned order-in-original dated 03.02.2025, against M/s.Ankith Industries, M/s.Ankit Marketing and M/s.Brijwasi Industries together.

Learned counsel for the petitioners also prays, during the course of submission, that he may be granted liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned order-in-

original dated 03.02.2025.

However, in order to make things correct in the pleadings and description of the parties with supporting documents, one week time is allowed.

List both these matters on 25.09.2025.”

3. Petitioners have filed an amendment to the cause title explaining that the petitioners in both the writ petitions are proprietary concerns represented by different proprietors.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that liberty may be granted to the respective petitioners to approach the appellate authority against the impugned order-in-original dated 03.02.2025.

5. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC submits that the petitioners have approached this Court after some delay. However, if the petitioners are interested in approaching the appellate authority, this Court may pass appropriate order.

6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, since the petitioners are willing to avail the remedy of appeal without making any comments on the merits of the case of the parties, the instant Writ Petitions are disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to approach the appellate authority within a period of two weeks.

7. If the petitioners prefer such appeal within the aforesaid period, the appellate authority would consider the same in accordance with law.

8. It would be open for the petitioners to raise all grounds as may be available to them on facts and on law, in the memo of appeal.

9. Accordingly, the instant Writ Petitions are disposed of.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

____________________________ APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ ___________________ G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J Date: 25.09.2025

LUR