M/S Royal Infinity Multiventures(P) LTD, Talcher vs. Addl.Commnr. GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, Rourkela

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

Heard Mr. A.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T.K. Satapathy, learned Senior Standing Counsel, GST, Central Tax and Customs appearing for the opposite parties.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the orders passed by the authority under Annexures-1, 5 and 6 on the ground that without taking into consideration the overlapping period, the demand has been raised.

Mr. A.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that so far as the demand raised by the authority under Annexure-1 dated 09.11.2023 is concerned, the same has been passed on the basis of the intelligence report for the period from 2017-18 and 2018-19. But the order dated 04.12.2023 has been passed by the Adjudicating Authority without taking into consideration the period of assessment already done by the authority under Annexure-1 relying upon the intelligence report.

Mr. T.K. Satapathy, learned Senior Standing Counsel, GST, Central Tax and Customs appearing for the opposite parties contended that the order dated 09.11.2023 passed by the authority under Annexure-1 relying upon the intelligence report for the assessment year 2017-18 and 2018-19 is different than that of the order dated 04.12.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority under Annexure-5 for the period from October, 2017 to March, 2018. It is contended that there may be some overlapping, but unless the same is brought to the notice, it is not practicable to know whether any amount is overlapping. Thereby, the Adjudicating Authority, gave opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the proceeding thrice and when the the petitioner deliberately and willfully did not participate in the proceeding, passed the order in original on 04.12.2023 under Annexure-5. Thereby, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the authority in passing the order impugned, which does not require any interference of this Court.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court finds that the factual position is not in dispute, as on the basis of the intelligence report, for the financial year 2017-18 and 2018-19, assessment was made by the authority under Annexure-1 dated 09.11.2023. But for the period from October, 2017 to March, 2018, the Adjudicating Authority passed the order on 04.12.2023 under Annexure-5. As it revealed from the order dated 04.12.2023, the Adjudicating Authority before passing the order has given thrice opportunity to the petitioner but the petitioner did not participate in the proceeding. As it appears from the record that the petitioner has intimated the period for which the Adjudicating Authority decided the matter and, as such, the same is the subject matter in the order dated 09.11.2023 passed by the authority on the basis of the intelligence report under Annexure-1. It is contended that the said fact has not been taken into consideration by the authority while passing the order impugned. But fact remains, the petitioner has never appeared before the Adjudicating Authority in spite of notice being issued thrice to the petitioner. Merely because the petitioner made request letter to the authority to consider the same, that cannot be said that the petitioner had appeared and taken steps in the matter. Had the petitioner participated in the proceeding, it would have informed the authority with regard to the fact of overlapping of the amount and, as such, the authority could have considered the same. Furthermore, it is also not correct to say that the order passed by the authority under Annexure-1 involves the period, which has been taken in the order passed under Annexure-5. But fact remains, if the demand has been raised for a particular period by the authority under Annexure-1, the same have been taken into consideration while passing the order in Annexure-5. However, unless the said fact is brought to the notice of the Adjudicating Authority, the same cannot be considered. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the order dated 04.12.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority under Annexure-5 cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Adjudicating Authority for its rehearing and passing appropriate order in accordance with law by giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. Needless to say, the petitioner shall appear before the Adjudicating Authority on 23.05.2024, so that the Adjudicating Authority can fix a date for final disposal of the matter.

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.