Dibyajit Bora vs. Union Of INDIA And 2 Ors
Facts
The petitioner, Dibyajit Bora, operating a sole proprietorship business registered with GST authorities, received a Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice dated 30.12.2020. This notice demanded service tax of Rs. 1,27,17,421/- along with interest and penalty under Section 73[1] of the Finance Act, 1994, read with Section 142[8][a] of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner filed a reply on 12.01.2021. Subsequently, the petitioner was unaware of an Order-in-Original passed by the Additional Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax (respondent no. 3) on 03.06.2022. The petitioner only became aware of this order upon receiving a notice dated 20.07.2023 from the Commissioner [Appeals] regarding an appeal filed by the Department against the said Order-in-Original. The Commissioner [Appeals], by an Order-in-Appeal dated 06.09.2023, dismissed the Department's appeal. The petitioner then applied for a certified copy of the Order-in-Original dated 03.06.2022 on 17.10.2023, which was not provided, leading to the filing of the present writ petition.
Held
The Court held that it was not necessary to proceed further with the writ petition beyond directing the petitioner to appear before the respondent no. 3 and the respondent no. 3 to supply a certified copy of the Order-in-Original dated 03.06.2022. The reasoning was based on the submissions of both parties. The petitioner's counsel agreed to the proposed course of action. The respondent GST authorities confirmed their willingness to provide the certified copy upon the petitioner's appearance. Therefore, the Court directed the petitioner to appear before respondent no. 3 on 18.01.2024, and respondent no. 3 was directed to supply the certified copy of the Order-in-Original dated 03.06.2022 to the petitioner on that date. No other issues were decided, and the writ petition was disposed of.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a certified copy of the Order-in-Original dated 03.06.2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax (respondent no. 3)? The petitioner argued that he had applied for a certified copy of the Order-in-Original dated 03.06.2022 to take appropriate steps, but it had not been furnished. This lack of information necessitated the filing of the writ petition. The respondent GST authorities, through their Standing Counsel, submitted that in view of the limited prayer for a certified copy, the writ petition could be disposed of at the motion stage. They further stated that the concerned departmental authority (respondent no. 3) was agreeable to furnish the certified copy upon the petitioner's appearance at their office on a specified date.
Sections Cited
Section 73[1], Section 142[8][a]
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Date : 08-01-2024 Heard Mr. R.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. P. Tamuli, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. K. Phukan, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondent no. 1; and Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, GST for the respondent nos.
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.