M/S INDIA Ahead News Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA, Ministry Of Finance

Held

The Court held that the impugned final order dated April 29, 2024, passed by Respondent No. 3, the Deputy Commissioner (ST)-5, Enforcement Wing-2, Hyderabad, was to be set aside. This decision was based on a consensus arrived at between the petitioner and the respondents. The Court agreed that the show cause notice was issued by Respondent No. 4, the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Jubilee Hills, and the final order was passed by Respondent No. 3. In light of this, the Court reserved liberty for Respondent No. 4 to take a final decision on the show cause notice in accordance with the law. The Court did not delve into the merits of the show cause notice or the tax dispute itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of the authority passing the final order. The Writ Petition was disposed of in terms of this consensus.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s India Ahead News Private Limited, challenged an order-in-original dated April 29, 2024, passed by Respondent No. 3, the Deputy Commissioner (ST)-5, Enforcement Wing-2, Hyderabad. The challenge was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner sought to quash this order and also prayed for a stay of further proceedings, including recovery, pursuant to the said order. The show cause notice leading to the impugned order was issued by Respondent No. 4, the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Jubilee Hills. During the hearing, both parties agreed that the final order passed by Respondent No. 3 should be set aside, with liberty reserved for Respondent No. 4 to make a final decision on the show cause notice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order-in-original dated April 29, 2024, passed by Respondent No. 3 is legally sustainable, given that the show cause notice was issued by Respondent No. 4? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed by an authority (Respondent No. 3) who did not issue the show cause notice, which was issued by Respondent No. 4. This procedural discrepancy was the basis of their challenge. Revenue's Contention: The respondents, including the Union of India and the State of Telangana, through their respective counsel, fairly admitted during the course of the hearing that the show cause notice dated February 7, 2022, was issued by Respondent No. 4, while the impugned final order dated April 29, 2024, was passed by Respondent No. 3. They agreed to the setting aside of the impugned order with liberty reserved for Respondent No. 4 to take a final decision on the show cause notice.