M/S Chinmastika Construction And Developers Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court did not decide the issue of limitation on merits. Instead, the parties reached a mutual agreement to dispose of the petition. The Court directed the petitioner to appear before the Additional Commissioner of GST and C. Ex. Patna-II on November 2, 2022, at 10:30 AM. The Assessing Authority was directed to decide the case on merits after complying with the principles of natural justice, affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties to place all essential documents and materials. No coercive steps were to be taken against the petitioner during the pendency of the case. The Assessing Authority was to pass a fresh order after adequate opportunity and a speaking order within two months from the petitioner's appearance. Liberty was reserved for the petitioner to challenge the order and for parties to pursue other remedies. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on merits and all issues were left open. Proceedings could be conducted through digital mode if possible.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Chinmastika Construction and Developers Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging a demand-cum-show cause notice dated April 28, 2021, issued by the Additional Commissioner of GST and C. Ex. Patna-II. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued beyond the period of limitation. While the petitioner had responded to the show cause notice, the issue remained pending. The petitioner sought a direction for the competent authority to consider and decide the issue expeditiously after considering their response. The respondents stated that the petitioner failed to respond within the stipulated period.

Key Issues

1. Whether the demand-cum-show cause notice dated April 28, 2021, issued by the Additional Commissioner of GST and C. Ex. Patna-II, is barred by limitation, as contended by the petitioner? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned demand-cum-show cause notice could not have been issued by the officer as the action was barred by limitation. The petitioner relied on the principle that statutory timelines must be adhered to. Revenue's Contention: The respondents, through learned counsel Shri Anshuman Singh, stated that the petitioner failed to respond to the show cause notice within the stipulated period of time. No specific provision or precedent was cited by the revenue in this regard.