M/S. Savitry Agrawal, Mayurbhanj vs. Commissioner (Appeals), GST, Central Excise And Customs, Bbsr

Mr. Das, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, impugned is, inter alia, order in appeal dated 6th December, 2024. The action of initiating proceeding by issuance of show-cause notice was barred by delay. He draws attention to paragraph 5. 9. It is reproduced below. “5.9 In this regard I find that as per Section 73(4B)(b) of the Finance Act’1994, Show Cause Order No. 01. notice should have been decided within time limit prescribed and preferably within one year. The Section 73(4B)(b) of the Finance Act, 1994 merely states that the cases where suppression etc. are invoked under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act’1994 may be decided within one year as far as possible. Thus the said section does not make it mandatory to decide the cases within one year. Further, although the case was pending decision for long, it did not cause any prejudice to the Appellant as the case is decided based on records and law during the relevant time.” He submits, aforesaid is no reason for consideration. In the circumstances, impugned order suffers from lack of reason regarding it being barred by delay. His client also has contentions on merit. It be set aside without proceeding to see purported adjudication on merits.

Mr. Mishra, learned advocate, Senior Standing Counsel appears on behalf of revenue and submits, there was adjudication duly made. Petitioner unsuccessfully preferred appeal. Good reasons have been given, both on delay as well as more importantly, on merits. Petitioner has no defence to the demand. Without prejudice, petitioner having had availed

In above reproduced paragraph-5.9 from impugned appellate order we see that the appellate authority correctly appreciated scope of the provision to be that there must be decision within one year as far as possible, required by section 73(4B)(b) in Finance Act, 1994. The paragraph carries two reasons given. First, regarding decision within one year as far as possible, it is according to the authority, directory and not mandatory. Secondly, the case was pending for long and it did not cause prejudice to petitioner.

Impugned order being silent on why the decision could not be made within one year as was not possible, the contention of the provision being directory is without basis. Second reason is clear admission of long delay as did not cause prejudice to petitioner. These we cannot accept as reasons for adjudicating on what was possible in the period of one year. As such, impugned order turns out to be bereft of reasons regarding delay. It is sufficient to cause interference.

Impugned appellate order is set aside and quashed. The appeal is restored to the first appellate authority for providing reason(s) on section 73(4B)(b). We make no observation or comment regarding merits of impugned order because in event petitioner is required to ventilate on merits, she must avail statutory remedy of appeal before the Tribunal.

The writ petition is disposed of.