Indra Konwar vs. The Union Of INDIA And 3 Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Indra Konwar, filed a writ petition challenging a recovery notice dated December 22, 2025, issued by Respondent No. 3 (Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Dibrugarh Division). The petitioner contended that he had no prior intimation of any proceedings before receiving this recovery notice. The relief sought included setting aside the recovery notice and an Order-in-Original dated February 1, 2023, also passed by Respondent No. 3. The petitioner also prayed for the issuance of a show cause notice, an opportunity to reply, and a fresh adjudication. The respondents, represented by the Union of India and GST authorities, stated that the final order was sent by registered post, though they lacked specific instructions regarding its actual service. A copy of the order was provided to the petitioner via an RTI application.

Held

The Court held that the interest of justice would be served by directing the proceedings to be initiated afresh, providing the petitioner with an opportunity to submit his show cause reply. The Court interfered with the Recovery Notice dated December 22, 2025, and directed that the proceedings be initiated afresh by issuing a copy of the original show cause notice to the petitioner. The petitioner, through his counsel, undertook to collect the show cause notice from the office of Respondent No. 3 within one week and file a reply within the time prescribed in the notice. The Court clarified that this interference was solely based on the aspect of not granting an opportunity and would not influence the adjudication of the dispute. The original order dated January 31, 2023 (issued on February 1, 2023) was also interfered with. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the recovery proceedings initiated vide Notice dated December 22, 2025, by Respondent No. 3 are liable to be set aside, considering the petitioner's claim of not receiving prior intimation? (Question of fact and law) 2. Whether the Order-in-Original No. 79/ST/ADJ/ACD/2022-23 dated February 1, 2023, passed by Respondent No. 3 should be set aside, given the alleged lack of proper opportunity for the petitioner to respond? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that he became aware of the proceedings only upon receiving the recovery notice, implying a procedural lapse in not providing him with a show cause notice or any prior intimation. Revenue's Contention: The revenue submitted that the final order was dispatched to the petitioner via registered post. However, they were not equipped with specific details regarding the actual service of this notice. They acknowledged that a copy of the order was furnished to the petitioner in response to an RTI application.