Prowess International Private Limited Through Its Authorized Signatory Mr Sanjay Kumar Jha vs. Union Of INDIA Ministry Of Finance Department Of Revenue

Facts

The petitioners, Prowess International Private Limited and Prakash Kumar, filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court challenging two orders. The first order, dated 21.05.2018, was passed by the Additional Commissioner, Central GST & CX, Jamshedpur (Respondent No. 3), imposing a central excise tax of Rs. 73,72,261/- along with penalties of Rs. 73,72,261/- on Petitioner No. 1 and Rs. 73,72,261/- on Petitioner No. 2. The petitioners contended this order was passed without an opportunity for cross-examination. The second order, dated 28.02.2019, was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST & Central Excise Ranchi (Respondent No. 4), dismissing the appeals against the Order-in-Original and confirming it. The petitioners sought to quash these orders and for a fresh decision with an opportunity for cross-examination.

Held

The Court did not decide the substantive issues raised by the petitioners. Instead, the learned counsel for the petitioners sought permission to withdraw the writ application on instructions from the client, indicating an intention to pursue the alternative remedy of appeal before the CESTAT. The written instructions to this effect were produced and taken on record. The respondents' counsel had no objection to the withdrawal. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn, granting the petitioners liberty to pursue the alternative remedy available in law. The Court did not make any findings on the validity of the impugned orders or the procedural fairness of the proceedings before the authorities.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Order-in-Original dated 21.05.2018, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Central GST & CX, Jamshedpur, imposing a central excise tax of Rs. 73,72,261/- and penalties of Rs. 73,72,261/- on Petitioner No. 1 and Rs. 73,72,261/- on Petitioner No. 2, is liable to be quashed for violation of principles of natural justice, specifically the denial of an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses whose statements formed the basis of the order? 2. Whether the Order-in-Appeal dated 28.02.2019, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST & Central Excise Ranchi, which dismissed the appeals against the Order-in-Original, is liable to be quashed? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that the Order-in-Original was passed without providing them an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses whose statements were relied upon by the revenue. They sought a fresh decision after granting this opportunity. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondents regarding the merits of the case. The respondents did not object to the withdrawal of the petition.