Hotel Atithi vs. Union Of INDIA And 2 Ors
Facts
The Petitioner, Hotel Atithi (Unit of Royal Mission Construction Pvt Ltd), filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 28.02.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise. This order confirmed a demand for Service Tax and imposed interest and penalty. The Petitioner received a show cause notice on 22.10.2021 and submitted a reply on 27.03.2023. Following a change in the adjudicating authority, a new notice was issued fixing a hearing for 17.01.2024. The Petitioner did not appear for this hearing, leading to the impugned order being passed. The Petitioner argued a failure of natural justice, while the Revenue did not record specific arguments on this point in the judgment.
Held
The Court held that the case did not constitute a failure of natural justice that would justify invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The reasoning was that the Petitioner had a statutory remedy available under the Finance Act, 1994, to prefer an appeal against the order dated 28.02.2024. Therefore, the High Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition. However, acknowledging the limitation period for filing an appeal (60 days from the receipt of the order), the Court, for the ends of justice, enlarged the period of limitation. The Petitioner was permitted to file the appeal within 30 days from the date of the instant order. The issue of whether natural justice was indeed violated was implicitly answered in the negative by directing the Petitioner to the appellate remedy.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Petitioner was denied natural justice, thereby warranting invocation of the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, in light of the impugned order dated 28.02.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise? Petitioner's contention: The Petitioner argued that there was a failure of natural justice because they did not receive the notice for the hearing scheduled for 17.01.2024, which led to the impugned order being passed without their appearance. They sought to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the Revenue regarding the denial of natural justice. However, the Court's opinion suggests that the Revenue's position implicitly supported the availability of an alternative statutory remedy.
Sections Cited
Finance Act, 1994
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010099492024
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2644/2024 HOTEL ATITHI (UNIT OF ROYAL MISSION CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD) A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SITUATED AT A.K. AZAD ROAD OPPOSITE OF NEPALI MANDIR, PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI 781008. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI YUVARAJ SHARMA SON OF LATE SHREE PRASAD SHARMA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY OF GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE NEW DELHI-110001 2:THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX GST BHAWAN KEDAR ROAD KAMRUP(M) ASSAM 781001 3:THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX GUWAHATI-II DIVISION GUWAHAT For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. R. S. Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. C. Keyal, SC, GST : Ms. K. Phukan, Dy. S.G.I.
Page No.# 2/3
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.