Ms Premsai Construction Company And Shri Satya Sai Baba Construction Company vs. The Union Of INDIA Through The Secretary And Others

Held

The Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 31.03.2023. The Court noted the petitioner's objection regarding the absence of a show cause notice and the failure to provide sufficient opportunities. The affidavit in reply did not provide any evidence of the petitioner being served with a show cause notice dated 29.12.2020. Given these circumstances and with the consensus of both sides, the Court decided to dispose of the petition without delving into the merits of the case or the maintainability of the second show cause notice. The petitioner was directed to appear before the proper authority on 14.12.2024 to receive and respond to a notice. The authority was then empowered to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law. The issue regarding the availability of an alternate remedy was not explicitly decided but was implicitly bypassed by the Court's order.

Facts

The petitioner, MS PREMSAI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND SHRI SATYA SAI BABA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, is challenging an order dated 31.03.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner CGST and Central Excise, Nagpur. The petitioner's primary contention is the absence of any show cause notice being served upon them and the authority's failure to provide at least four opportunities for response. The affidavit in reply filed by the respondent did not provide any details or evidence to substantiate the claim that the petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 29.12.2020. The issue of alternate remedy was also raised.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 31.03.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner CGST and Central Excise, Nagpur, is vitiated by the absence of a proper show cause notice to the petitioner, as required under the relevant provisions of the GST law? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that no show cause notice was served upon them, and the respondent authority failed to provide the minimum of four opportunities for them to respond. They contended that the affidavit in reply did not contain any particulars or evidence to prove the service of a show cause notice dated 29.12.2020. Revenue's arguments: The judgment records that the revenue filed a reply and both sides were heard. However, the specific arguments made by the revenue regarding the show cause notice and opportunities are not detailed in the judgment.