Ranjan Dutta vs. The Union Of INDIA And Anr

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court found no jurisdictional error committed by the Principal Commissioner, CGST, in passing the Order-in-Original, especially considering that the petitioner had an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Court was not inclined to entertain the dispute regarding the legality and validity of the Order-in-Original. However, the dismissal of the writ petition was not to preclude the petitioner from availing the appellate remedy. The Court noted that the writ petition was filed within the limitation period for appeal and had been pending. Therefore, the period during which the writ petition was pending was directed to be excluded for computing the period of limitation for filing the appeal. The petitioner was granted 30 days from the date of the order to prefer an appeal under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, and the appellate authority was directed to adjudicate the appeal on merits without insisting on the question of limitation. The interim protection granted earlier was extended for 30 days from the date of the order.

Facts

The petitioner, Ranjan Dutta, challenged an Order-in-Original dated March 24, 2022, issued by the Principal Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Dibrugarh. This order demanded Service Tax and Cess amounting to Rs. 5,52,37,695/- for the period from October 2014 to June 2017, along with penalty and interest. The petitioner received the order on April 9, 2022. The petitioner's grounds for challenge included not being afforded another date for personal hearing upon request and the alleged duplicate use of a DIN number in the order. The petitioner had been issued a show cause notice on December 31, 2020, and a personal hearing was fixed for February 18, 2022, which the petitioner did not attend. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show cause notice on March 30, 2022, after the Order-in-Original had already been passed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, considering the availability of an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the Order-in-Original was passed without affording a proper opportunity for personal hearing and raised concerns about the DIN number. The petitioner argued that these procedural irregularities warranted the High Court's intervention. Revenue's arguments: The revenue contended that the petitioner failed to avail the opportunities for personal hearing and to file a timely reply to the show cause notice. The revenue further argued that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, making the writ petition not maintainable. The revenue relied on the fact that the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice was belated.