M/S Central Arya Road Transport And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the issue of invoking the extended period of limitation was a mixed question of fact and law, not purely a question of law, as it required delving into disputed facts presented in the appellants' reply to the show-cause notice. The Court also found that allegations of perversity in the order in original, concerning the non-consideration of documents, also involved adjudication into facts. Consequently, the Court opined that these matters could not be adjudicated in a writ petition and that the statutory appellate remedy before the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was an efficacious and effective remedy. The Court made it clear that its observations were prima facie and would not prejudice the appellants' rights before the Tribunal. The appeal was dismissed, with liberty granted to the appellants to file an appeal before the Tribunal within 90 days, which the Tribunal was directed to entertain without reference to limitation.

Facts

The appellants, M/s. Central Arya Road Transport & Anr., challenged an order in original dated March 31, 2023, passed by the Principal Commissioner of CGST & CX, Kolkata South. This order demanded service tax and cess of Rs. 9,88,29,246/- and imposed an equal penalty under the Finance Act, 1994, read with the CGST Act, 2017. The proceedings covered the period from April 2014 to June 2017, with the show-cause notice issued on November 11, 2019. The appellants had previously undergone audits in January 2015 and January 2017. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Bench, leading to this intra-Court appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the invocation of the extended period of limitation under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, was permissible, given the audits conducted prior to the show-cause notice and the appellants' contention of no wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, fraud, or collusion? The appellants argued that the extended period could not be invoked as the department was aware of the facts through prior audits, citing Commissioner of Service Tax Vs. Naresh Kumar & Company Pvt. Ltd. The revenue contended that the show-cause notice and the order in original provided reasons for invoking the extended period, which were contested by the appellants in their reply, making it a mixed question of fact and law. 2. Whether the order in original suffers from perversity due to non-consideration or rejection of documents on flimsy grounds? The appellants argued that vital documents were ignored. The revenue's stance on this issue is not explicitly recorded, but the Court's reasoning implies that such factual disputes are not amenable to writ jurisdiction.