M/S Maity Transport , And Anr vs. The Additional / Joint Haldia Commissionerate Of CGST And Cx And Anr

Held

The Division Bench observed that the learned Single Judge was prima facie satisfied that the appellant had made out a case for entertaining the writ petition and that affidavits were required for adjudication. The Court noted that if the respondent department initiated recovery or coercive action before the writ petition was heard, it could render the petition infructuous. Therefore, to protect the appellant's interest until the writ petition is disposed of, the Court directed the respondent authority not to initiate any recovery proceedings or take coercive action against the appellant pursuant to the order impugned in the writ petition. The Court listed the writ petition for hearing on 16.01.2023, with the interim order operating until then. The respondents were directed to file their affidavit-in-opposition well before the hearing date. The appeal was disposed of with these observations.

Facts

The appellant, M/s. Maity Transport & anr., is aggrieved by an order dated 29.09.2022 passed by a learned Single Judge in WPA 21767 of 2022. The Single Judge had declined to grant an interim order. The appellant's writ petition challenges the jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority to initiate proceedings. Specifically, the appellant questions whether the adjudicating authority can invoke the extended period of limitation to adjudicate an issue for an earlier period when it has already done so for a subsequent period. The learned Single Judge was prima facie satisfied that the writ petition had merit and required affidavits from the respondents for adjudication. The present appeal is against the refusal to grant interim relief.

Key Issues

1. Whether the adjudicating authority can invoke the extended period of limitation to adjudicate the same issue for an earlier period, having already invoked it for a subsequent period? (Question of law) Contentions of the appellant: The appellant contends that the adjudicating authority lacks jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for an earlier period by invoking the extended period of limitation, especially when the same issue for a subsequent period has already been adjudicated. They argue that such action would be arbitrary and beyond the authority's power. Contentions of the revenue/State: The judgment records no specific arguments made by the respondent department regarding the jurisdictional issue or the invocation of the extended period of limitation. The respondents were directed to file affidavits to address the dispute raised in the writ petition.