Ms Siya Online Labs Private Limited Through Its Director Rinku Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIA Through The Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax And Central Excise

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Siya Online Labs Private Limited, approached the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi challenging a Show Cause-cum-Demand Notice bearing No. 3367 dated 28.09.2020, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise, Marar, Ramgarh (Respondent No. 2). The notice pertained to alleged liabilities for the financial years 2014-15 and 2015-16. The petitioner argued that the authorities lacked jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under the now-omitted Chapter-V of the Finance Act, 1994, as it was not saved by Section 174 of the CGST Act, and that the notice was issued by an incompetent authority. However, the petitioner's counsel informed the court that a reply had been submitted to the adjudicating authority.

Held

The High Court disposed of the writ petition without delving into the merits of the case. The Court noted that the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted on instruction that the petitioner had already filed a reply before the adjudicating authority in response to the show cause notice. Consequently, the Court directed the adjudicating authority to take a decision in accordance with the law within a reasonable time. The Court explicitly stated that the writ petition was disposed of "without going into the merit of the case." No specific finding was given on the jurisdictional issues raised by the petitioner, nor were any operative directions issued beyond asking the adjudicating authority to decide the matter.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Respondent-authorities have the jurisdiction, competence, and authority to initiate proceedings under the omitted Chapter-V of the Finance Act, 1994, given that its omission by Section 173 of the CGST Act is not saved by Section 174 of the CGST Act? (Question of law, turning on Section 173 and Section 174 of the CGST Act). 2. Whether the Show Cause-cum-Demand Notice dated 28.09.2020, issued by Respondent No. 2, is liable to be quashed as being wholly without jurisdiction and illegal, particularly if issued by an authority not acting as a 'Proper Officer' under the Finance Act, 1994? (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on the definition of 'Proper Officer' under the Finance Act, 1994 and the applicability of Section 174 of the CGST Act). Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the omission of Chapter-V of the Finance Act, 1994, by Section 173 of the CGST Act, and the lack of saving provisions under Section 174 of the CGST Act, rendered the initiation of fresh proceedings illegal. They also contended that the notice was issued by an incompetent authority, not acting as a 'Proper Officer' under the Finance Act, 1994. Revenue's contentions: The learned counsel for the respondent did not object to the petitioner's prayer for disposal of the writ petition.