Ms Tata Steel Limited Thr Its Chief Legal Counsel Indirect Taxation Vikash Mittal vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax And Central Excise

Held

The Court permitted the Petitioner to withdraw the writ petition. The Court held that the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, leaving the questions of law open. The Court also directed that the adjudicating authority shall not be influenced by the correspondence dated August 26, 2021 (Annexure-7) while deciding on the show cause notice. The adjudicating authority was instructed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the Petitioner in terms of the Act before making a decision. The Court did not make any specific findings on the nature of the letter dated August 26, 2021, as the matter was withdrawn by the Petitioner.

Facts

M/s. Tata Steel Limited (Petitioner) challenged a letter dated August 26, 2021, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, CGST (Respondent No. 3). The Petitioner appealed this letter to the Joint Commissioner (Appeal), CGST, who rejected the appeal. The appellate authority held that the letter was advisory, not an appealable order, and that no pre-deposit had been made. Subsequently, a show cause notice under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act was issued on August 3, 2022, relating to tax periods 2019-20, 2020-2021, and 2021-2022, with an earlier intimation (DRC-01(A)) on December 25, 2021, indicating tax of Rs. 27,36,42,028/- for 2019-20.

Key Issues

1. Whether the letter dated August 26, 2021, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, CGST, is an appealable order under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, or merely advisory in nature? 2. Whether the adjudication proceedings initiated by the issuance of a show cause notice under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act should be influenced by the aforementioned letter dated August 26, 2021? Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner argued that the letter dated August 26, 2021, was in the nature of an order, not an advisory, and sought to keep the questions of law open upon withdrawal of the writ petition. They also requested clarity that the said letter should not influence the ongoing adjudication proceedings. Respondent's Arguments: The Respondent-CGST contended that the appellate authority had already determined the letter dated August 26, 2021, to be advisory and not an appealable order. Therefore, the department was justified in initiating adjudication proceedings, in which the Petitioner should participate.