Amit Agarwal vs. Union Of INDIA Secretary Through The Ministry Of Finance Deptt Of Revenue

Held

The Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition. The petitioner was granted four weeks' time to respond to the impugned show cause notice. The Court held that all contentions of all parties are left open, including the issue of whether Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, is ultra vires the parent Act. While acknowledging that such an issue cannot typically be raised before the Adjudicating Authority, the Court explicitly left open the petitioner's right to question the validity of Rule 26(2) if any adverse orders are made disposing of the show cause notice. The Court also noted that if no response is filed within the stipulated time, the Adjudicating Authority is free to pass orders without awaiting the response, provided they comply with the principles of natural justice and fair play. The Court reasoned that issues of ultra vires and constitutional validity are not to be decided merely because they can be, but only if they must be.

Facts

The petitioner, Amit Agarwal, proprietor of M/s Shree Balaji Enterprises, filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court challenging an action by the GST Intelligence Unit. The specific order or action under challenge is not detailed, but it appears to be a show cause notice issued by the revenue authorities. The petitioner sought to raise contentions regarding the vires of Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The respondents are the Union of India and various GST intelligence and revenue authorities. The procedural history involves the petitioner seeking to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to respond to the show cause notice and preserve the right to challenge the validity of Rule 26(2) if an adverse order is passed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to withdraw the writ petition with the right to respond to the impugned show cause notice and to raise contentions regarding the alleged ultra vires nature of Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, in future proceedings if an adverse order is passed by the adjudicating authority. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to respond to the show cause notice. They further requested that if any adverse orders are made, they should be allowed to raise all contentions, including the argument that Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, is ultra vires the Central Excise Act, 1944. The petitioner also prayed for reasonable time to respond to the show cause notice. Respondents' Argument: The respondents did not oppose the petitioner's request for withdrawal with liberty.