M/S.Utkal Projects PVT.LTD. vs. Addl.Director,Dgcei

Held

The Court noted that since a final assessment order had been passed, an alternative remedy of appeal was available to the petitioner. Therefore, the Court disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal within four weeks. The Court directed that if the petitioner files an appeal and a separate application for waiving pre-deposit, these would be considered in accordance with law. Crucially, the Court also directed the Appellate Authority to consider the period of pendency of the writ petition (from 18.05.2017 till the date of the order) for the purpose of condoning any delay in filing the appeal, treating the approach to the wrong forum as a bona fide mistake under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The Court did not decide the merits of the challenges to the show cause notice or the order in original.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated 24.04.2017, purportedly issued under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, alleging it was without jurisdiction and time-barred. The petitioner also challenged an order in original dated 08.10.2018 passed by the Additional Commissioner, GST & Central Excise, Bhubaneswar. This order was allegedly passed despite a previous court order dated 23.03.2018 and was further challenged for violating principles of natural justice, impropriety, and judicial discipline. The revenue or State is the respondent authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the show cause notice dated 24.04.2017, issued under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, is without jurisdiction and barred by limitation? 2. Whether the order in original dated 08.10.2018, passed by the Additional Commissioner, GST & Central Excise, Bhubaneswar, is vitiated by non-compliance with principles of natural justice, impropriety, and judicial discipline, especially in light of a prior court order dated 23.03.2018? Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the show cause notice was issued without jurisdiction and suffered from limitation. They also contended that the subsequent order in original was passed in violation of natural justice and judicial discipline, despite a prior communication from the Court. Revenue's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue or State.