M/S Nayanjyoti Transport Services vs. Union Of INDIA And 4 Ors

WP(C)/3825/2023HC GauhatiGSTCNR GAHC01014412202316 March 2026Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI4 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The petitioner, M/s NayanJyoti Transport Services, is a Goods Transport Agency. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 22.10.2021 by respondent no. 4 for the financial year 2016-17, demanding service tax of Rs.61,76,335.35. The petitioner submitted a reply, and respondent no. 4 dropped the proceedings by an order in original dated 23.08.2022. Subsequently, respondent no. 5 issued another show cause notice dated 30.03.2023, confirming a demand of Rs.61,76,335.35 for the same period and figures. The petitioner contends that this second proceeding is without authority of law, as the matter had already been adjudicated and dropped.

Held

The Court held that the initiation of a fresh proceeding by respondent no. 5, based on the same period and figures for which an earlier proceeding was dropped by respondent no. 4, is not sustainable. The Court reasoned that the fact that the petitioner did not respond to the subsequent show cause notice does not grant the respondents the authority or jurisdiction to initiate another proceeding on the same period and figures, especially when the earlier proceeding had culminated in an order dropping the same. Therefore, a case for interference was made out. The impugned order dated 30.03.2023 was set aside. The principle is that once a matter has been adjudicated and proceedings dropped, a fresh proceeding on identical grounds and period is impermissible.

Key Issues

1. Whether the initiation of a fresh proceeding by respondent no. 5 via show cause notice dated 30.03.2023, confirming a demand for service tax of Rs.61,76,335.35 for the financial year 2016-17, is legally sustainable when an earlier proceeding for the same period and amount was dropped by respondent no. 4 vide order in original dated 23.08.2022? (Question of law). Petitioner's contentions: The impugned action is without authority of law, unreasonable, and arbitrary. Once proceedings for the same period and figures were dropped by an order in original, a fresh proceeding cannot be instituted. Revenue's contentions: The petitioner did not appear and file a reply to the subsequent show cause notice, justifying the action. However, the revenue did not dispute the aspect of the earlier proceeding for the same period and figures.

Sections Cited

Notification No. 30/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010144122023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3825/2023 M/S NAYANJYOTI TRANSPORT SERVICES A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT DIGARU, P.O. VILL - DIGARU, DIST- KAMRUP METRO, GUWAHATI, ASSAM, PIN-782401, REPRESENTED BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR SHRI SATYABRAT RONGPI VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE 2:THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRLA GOODS AND SERVICE TAX GST BHAWAN KEDAR ROAD GUWAHATI-781001 ASSAM 3:THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX CENTRAL GST BHAWAN NETAJI CHOWMUJANI MANTRI BARI ROAD P.O.-AGARTALA H.O. WEST TRIPURA DIST-TRIPURA PIN-799001 4:THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX GUWAHATI GST BHAWAN KEDAR ROAD GUWHAATI-781001 Page No.# 2/4 ASSAM 5:THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CENTRLA GOODS AND SERVICE TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE AGARTALA OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX CENTRAL GST BHAWAN NETAJI CHOWMUJANI MANTRI BARI ROAD P.O.-AGARTALA H.O. WEST TRIPURA DIST-TRIPURA PIN-79900 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R S MISHRA, MR K J SAIKIA Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, GST BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

ORDER 17.03.2026

Heard Shri R. S. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri S. C. Keyal, learned Senior Standing Counsel, CGST.

Considering the facts and circumstances involved and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage.

As per the facts projected, the petitioner is engaged in the business of Goods, Transport Agency Service which is covered under Entry No. I A (ii) & II of the Notification No. 30/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. It is contended that in terms of the said Notification, the petitioner is not required to pay service tax and rather the service recipient is liable to pay tax @ 100% on the value under Page No.# 3/4 reverse charge. However, the respondent no. 4 had issued a show cause notice dated 22.10.2021 for the financial year 2016-17 for an amount of Rs.61,76,335. 35. On receipt of such notice, the petitioner had submitted his reply along with documents. The respondent no. 4, after considering the same had dropped the proceedings vide an order in original dated 23.08.2022. However, the grievance of the petitioner pertains to another show cause notice dated 30.03.2023 issued by the respondent no. 5 confirming demand of Service Tax of Rs.61,76,335.35. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the impugned order dated 30.03.2023 has been passed for the same period and same figures pertaining to the earlier notice dated 22.10.2021 which had culminated in the order in original dated 23.08.2022 whereby the proceedings were dropped.

Shri Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned action is wholly without any authority of law apart from being unreasonable and arbitrary. He has submitted that once the matter was adjudicated and the proceeding dropped vide the order in original dated 23.08.2022, another proceeding could not have been instituted based on the same period and same figures.

Shri Keyal, the learned Senior Standing Counsel, by referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on 27.10.2025 has however contended that the petitioner, in spite of receipt of notice of the present demand never appeared and filed his reply and accordingly justifies the action. He has however not disputed the aspect of an earlier proceeding initiated vide the show cause notice dated 22.10.2021 for the same period and same figure.

Page No.# 4/4

This Court is of the considered opinion that merely because of the fact that the petitioner did not respond to the subsequent show cause notice culminating in the impugned demand, the same will not grant authority or juri iction upon the respondents to initiate another proceeding on the same period and same figure inasmuch as, the earlier proceeding had culminated in an order in original dated 23.08.2022 whereby the same was dropped.

In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that a case of interference is made out. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 30.03.2023 is interfered with and stands set aside.

Writ petition accordingly stands allowed.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Reproduced from the public record of the Gauhati High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.