M/S Gyankeer Tobacco Products Private Limited vs. Additional Commissioner

Held

The Court held that the controversy involved in the present petition had already been adjudicated by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of Gyankeer Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Excise And Central Goods and Services Tax Commissionerate & Ors. The Court found that the issue arising from the Advance Ruling and proceedings under Section 104 of the CGST/RGST Act, concerning the same aspect as in the present case, had already been decided in favour of the petitioner. The Court noted that the previous judgment had quashed show cause notices issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act and Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, finding that the jurisdictional conditions were not satisfied and that the attempt to revive allegations of fraud and suppression was impermissible. Therefore, following the precedent set by the Division Bench, the Court allowed the present writ petition in the same terms.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Gyankeer Tobacco Products Private Limited, challenged a show cause notice dated 04.05.2026 issued by the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise and Central Goods and Services Tax Commissionerate. This notice was issued in continuation of a previous show cause notice dated 08.08.2024, which had been set aside by the Rajasthan High Court on 16.04.2026 in favour of the taxpayer. The petitioner argued that the current show cause notice was an attempt to reopen issues that had already attained finality, citing the previous High Court order. The respondents opposed the petition but conceded that the issue had been decided by a Division Bench of the High Court in a prior case involving the same petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the current show cause notice dated 04.05.2026, issued by the Additional Commissioner (Respondent No. 1), is liable to be quashed and set aside, considering it was issued in continuation of a previous show cause notice that was already set aside by this Court? The petitioner contended that the current show cause notice attempts to reopen issues that have already been decided and attained finality, citing the previous High Court order in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18915/2024. They argued that the respondents' plea of "fresh findings" was unsubstantiated and that the issuance of the impugned notice reflected an impermissible attempt to circumvent the binding effect of previous rulings and the principles of judicial discipline. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Kamalakshi Finance Corporation regarding the binding nature of appellate orders on subordinate authorities. The respondents opposed the petitioner's submissions but acknowledged that the issue had been previously adjudicated by the Division Bench.