Aloke Bhowmick vs. Additional Commissioner

Held

The Court held that the question of whether the show cause notice was barred by time and whether there was an allegation of suppression or misstatement are factual issues, not purely legal questions. Furthermore, the determination of whether the appellant's services were exempted is also a factual matter that needs to be adjudicated by the authority who issued the show cause notice. Consequently, the Court found that the learned Single Bench was correct in refusing to entertain the writ petition and interdict the show cause notice. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was directed to submit objections to the show cause notice within four weeks of receiving a copy of the judgment. The concerned authority was directed to adjudicate the show cause notice on merits and pass a reasoned order.

Facts

The appellant, Aloke Bhowmick, filed an intra-court appeal against an order dated January 17, 2022, passed by the learned Writ Court. The appellant had challenged a show cause notice dated October 11, 2021, issued by the respondent, Additional Commissioner, CGST & CX, Kolkata South CGST & CX Commissionerate. The appellant's primary contention was that the show cause notice was barred by limitation and that the services rendered were exempted, rendering the notice void ab initio. The respondent is the revenue authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the show cause notice dated October 11, 2021, issued by the respondent is barred by limitation, and if so, whether it is ab initio void, considering the appellant's contention that the services rendered were exempted services and there was no allegation of suppression or misstatement. The appellant argued that the show cause notice was barred by limitation and that the services provided were exempted, making the notice void from the outset. The revenue did not present any arguments in the judgment.