Anamika Kumari vs. Union Of INDIA Through The Commissioner Of Central Excise And Service Tax And Anr
Held
The Court noted the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, who, on instruction, sought permission to withdraw the writ petition. This withdrawal was sought because an adjudication order had been passed during the pendency of the writ petition, and the petitioner intended to avail of the alternative remedy against this order. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. The petitioner was granted liberty to pursue the available legal remedies against the adjudication order. The specific merits of the issues raised by the petitioner regarding the pre-determined mind and dual classification were not adjudicated upon by the Court due to the withdrawal of the petition.
Facts
The petitioner, Anamika Kumari, filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court challenging a Demand-cum-Notice to Show Cause dated 09.12.2016/09.01.2017, issued by the respondent-authorities (Union of India & another). The petitioner alleged that the show cause notice was issued with a pre-determined mind and that the authorities were adopting two contrary classifications for services rendered to M/s Madhusudan Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. During the pendency of the writ petition, an adjudication order was passed. The petitioner, on instruction, sought permission to withdraw the writ petition to avail of the alternative remedy against the said adjudication order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Demand-cum-Notice to Show Cause dated 09.12.2016/09.01.2017 was issued with a pre-determined mind, violating the principles of natural justice? The petitioner argued that the notice was a mere formality and a camouflage to appear compliant with natural justice, as the respondents had already prejudged the issue. 2. Whether the respondent-authorities were legally permitted to adopt two distinct and contrary classifications for the services rendered by the petitioner to M/s Madhusudan Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd.? The petitioner contended that such an action was impermissible in law. The respondents' arguments were not recorded in the judgment.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (T) No. 4487 of 2017 Anamika Kumari
…. Petitioner Versus Union of India & another
.
…. Respondents --- CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Through Video Conferencing --- For the Petitioner
: Mr. Ranjeet Kushwaha, Advocate For the Respondent-CGST : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate --- 06/17.12.2020 Learned counsel, Mr. Ranjeet Kushwaha on instruction of learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sumeet Gadodia seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition since adjudication order has been passed in this case during pendency of the writ petition. The petitioner would avail of the alternative remedy against it. Mr. Amit Kumar, appears for the C.G.S.T upon revision of the panel of CBIC in place of Mr. Ratnesh Kumar erstwhile counsel. Writ petitioner had approached this Court with the following reliefs: (i) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction, including Writ in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing the Demand-cum- Notice to Show Cause dated 09.12.2016/09.01.2017 (hereinafter referred to as
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Jharkhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.