M/S Ajay Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIA

Original PDF →

C. REV./13/2021HC PatnaGSTCNR BRHC01054000202014 March 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI,MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Ajay Kumar, through its partner Smt. Mala Sinha, filed a Civil Review Petition No. 13 of 2021 challenging an order passed in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14802 of 2018. The respondents, including the Union of India and various CGST authorities, admitted that defects and errors were committed by the authorities while passing the impugned order dated 02.04.2018. The respondents stated that it was impracticable to implement a previous order dated 04.01.2024 without setting aside the impugned order. The railway respondents (Respondent No. 4) were also involved in providing material information that was not considered.

Held

The Court allowed the Civil Review Petition and recalled the order dated 29.08.2000 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 14802 of 2018. With the consent of both parties, C.W.J.C. No. 14802 of 2018 was heard and disposed of afresh. The Court found that the impugned order dated 02.04.2018 contained defects as certain material information, which was required to be provided by the railway respondents, was not taken into account. Consequently, the petitioner had made out a case for interference. The order dated 02.04.2018 passed by the Joint Commissioner-cum-CGST Central Excise, Patna-I, was set aside. The matter was remanded to the concerned authority for reassessment after obtaining the necessary material information from the Railway authorities. Before any action, the petitioner is to be heard and provided with a proposal of assessment. The petitioner can then file objections, and the Assessing Authority will pass a final order considering all issues and materials within six months.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 02.04.2018, passed by the Joint Commissioner-cum-CGST Central Excise, Patna-I, suffers from material defects and errors warranting interference by the Court, particularly concerning the non-consideration of material information from the railway authorities. (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and proper assessment under GST law). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed with defects and errors, and that material information was not considered, necessitating a review and fresh assessment. Revenue's contention: The respondents admitted that defects/errors were committed by the authorities while passing the impugned order and that it was impracticable to implement the previous order without setting aside the impugned order. They consented to the matter being heard afresh.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL REVIEW No.13 of 2021 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14802 of 2018 ====================================================== M/S Ajay Kumar through Partner Smt. Mala Sinha ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Union of India through the Commissioner Service tax Cum Central Excise. C.R. building B.C. Patel Path Patna. 2. The Joint Commissioner, CGST, Central revenue Building (ANNexi) B.C. Marg) Patna. 3. The Superintendent CGST and CX, CGST Range Phulwarisharif Rukanpura, Bailey Road Distt.-Patna. 4. The Senior D.E.N. Mechanical, E C Railway at aand P.O. danapur Distt.- Patna. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Dr. K.N. Singh, ASG ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY

ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI) 9 14-03-2024 The learned counsel for the respondents on instruction submitted that it is impracticable to implement the order dated 04.01.2024 in the absence of setting aside the impugned order in the writ petition. Respondents have admitted certain defects/ errors have been committed by the authorities while passing the impugned order which was the subject matter of C.W.J.C. (Respondent No.4).

Taking note of aforementioned submission on behalf 2/3 of the respondents, Civil Review petition stands allowed while recalling the order dated 29.08.2000 passed in C.W.J.C. No.14802 of 2018. 3. With the consent of the respective parties C.W.J.C. No.14802 of 2018 has been heard and disposed of afresh in the light of the admitted fact that in the impugned order dated 02.04.2018 there are certain material information has not been taken note of which was required to be provided by the railway respondents to that effect there are defects. Consequently the petitioner has made out a case so as to interfere with the order dated 2.4.2018 passed by the Joint Commission-cum-CGST Central Excise, Patna-I and it is set aside and the matter is remanded to the concerned authority to reassess after taking material information from the Railway authorities. Before taking any action against the petitioner, the petitioner shall be heard in the matter to the extent of giving a proposal of assessment with a material information. If such proposal / tentative assessment is provided to the petitioner, the petitioner is permitted to file his objection/explanation, if any, along with necessary materials and thereafter the Assessing Authority is hereby directed to pass final order after due consideration of each of the issue to be raised by the petitioner along with material information. The above 3/3 exercise shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order.

Amit/-sanjeev/- (P. B. Bajanthri, J) ( Alok Kumar Pandey, J) U

Reproduced from the public record of the Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.