Pappachan Chakkiath vs. Assistant Commissioner

Facts

The appellant, Pappachan Chakkiath, is challenging an order (Ext.P4) issued by the Assistant Commissioner, State Goods and Service Tax Department, under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Act. This order imposed a total liability of Rs.9,70,596/- for the period from July 2017 to March 2018. The appellant's writ petition before the High Court was dismissed. The appellant argued that the proceedings were without jurisdiction because the show cause notice was not issued within the time specified in Section 73(2) read with Section 73(10) of the Act, despite a notification under Section 168A extending the time for issuing orders for the financial year 2017-2018 up to September 30, 2023. The learned single judge did not accept this contention. Following the dismissal, the appellant sought and was granted time to file a statutory appeal.

Held

The High Court dismissed the writ appeal. The Court noted that the appellant had sought and was granted permission by the learned single judge to avail the alternate statutory remedy of appeal against Ext.P4 order. The appellant had, in fact, filed this statutory appeal. Therefore, the High Court was not inclined to admit the writ appeal and hear the contentions on merits. The Court addressed the appellant's apprehension that the dismissal of the writ petition might prejudice his case before the appellate authority. The High Court clarified that the learned single judge had only considered the contentions for the purpose of declining jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and had not entered findings on the merits of the case. The appellant was explicitly permitted to raise all contentions against Ext.P4 order before the appellate authority, which was directed to consider them and pass a speaking order without delay. The issue of jurisdiction concerning the time limit for issuing the show cause notice was not decided on merits by the High Court in this appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the proceedings culminating in Ext.P4 order, issued under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Act for the period July 2017 to March 2018, are without jurisdiction due to the alleged non-issuance of the show cause notice within the time prescribed by Section 73(2) read with Section 73(10) of the Act, notwithstanding the extension provided by a notification under Section 168A of the CGST Act. Petitioner's Contention: The appellant argued that the entire proceedings are without jurisdiction. He contended that while Section 168A of the CGST Act, through a notification, extended the time for issuing orders for the financial year 2017-2018 up to September 30, 2023, this extension pertains only to the issuance of the order. The crucial requirement, according to the appellant, is that the show cause notice must have been issued within the time specified in Section 73(2) read with Section 73(10) of the Act. Failure to issue the show cause notice within the stipulated period renders the entire proceedings void. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state respondents before the High Court regarding this issue. The learned single judge, however, did not accept the petitioner's contention.