Kumarjit Das vs. Superintendent,CGST And Cx R-I And Ors

Held

The Court, without delving into the legality and validity of the impugned notice, directed the petitioner to submit a representation to the respondent authority within one week, raising all points argued in the writ petition. The respondent authority was directed to consider and dispose of this representation within four weeks of its submission, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The disposal must be by a reasoned and speaking order, communicated to the petitioner within one week thereafter. Crucially, the respondent authority was directed to consider the applicability of the two unreported High Court decisions cited by the petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations and directions.

Facts

The petitioner, Kumarjit Das, filed a writ petition challenging a show-cause-cum-demand notice dated December 30, 2020, issued by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise. The petitioner argued that similar notices had been issued previously, to which a reply was submitted but not considered. The petitioner contended that the current demand was not maintainable under the law and that they were exempted from such payments. The petitioner sought to rely on decisions from the Orissa High Court (Devi Prasad Tripathy vs. The Principal Commissioner CGST and Central Excise) and the Bombay High Court (Sanjiv Madhusudan Shah vs. Assistant Commissioner of Central and Service Tax).

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned show-cause-cum-demand notice dated December 30, 2020, issued by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, is legally tenable, considering the petitioner's claim of exemption and prior non-consideration of replies to similar notices? (Question of law/mixed fact and law) Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the demand raised in the notice was not maintainable under the relevant provisions of law and that they were exempted from such payment. They also contended that previous similar notices and their replies were not considered. The petitioner relied on the unreported decisions of the Orissa High Court in Devi Prasad Tripathy vs. The Principal Commissioner CGST and Central Excise and the Bombay High Court in Sanjiv Madhusudan Shah vs. Assistant Commissioner of Central and Service Tax. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents (Superintendent, CGST & CX R-I, BBD Bag Division, Kolkata North Commissionerate & Ors.).