Sulabh International Social Service Organisation vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.

Held

The Court took on record the order centralizing the adjudication of the show cause notice to a single officer, the Additional Director General (Adjudication). Regarding the petitioner's other contentions, the Court held that it was open to the petitioner to raise all arguments, including the applicability of claimed exemptions and the non-adjudicability of past liabilities under the Finance Act, before the Adjudicating Officer. The Adjudicating Officer was directed to deal with these contentions by a reasoned order. The Court found that in view of the centralization order and the liberty granted to raise contentions, nothing further survived in the present proceedings. The writ petition was disposed of reserving all rights and contentions of the parties.

Facts

The petitioner, Sulabh International Social Service Organisation, filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated April 3, 2018. The petitioner raised three primary grounds: the notice covered different periods and jurisdictions, implying adjudication by multiple officers; the notice indicated a pre-disposition to confirm the demand; and the demands were not legally tenable under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. During the hearing, the respondent produced an order (No. 2 of 2018-19) centralizing the adjudication of the impugned show cause notice, which originally required adjudication by 38 different officers, to a single officer, the Additional Director General (Adjudication). A corrigendum was expected.

Key Issues

1. Whether the show cause notice dated April 3, 2018, is liable to be quashed on the grounds that it covers different periods and jurisdictions, necessitating adjudication by multiple officers, and discloses a pre-disposition to confirm the demand? (Question of law and mixed fact and law). 2. Whether the demands covered by the show cause notice are legally tenable in light of the advent of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? (Question of law). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the show cause notice was procedurally flawed due to its multi-jurisdictional and multi-period nature, suggesting bias. They also argued that the GST regime rendered past demands under the Finance Act legally untenable. Revenue's arguments: The respondent submitted an order centralizing the adjudication of the show cause notice to a single officer, indicating a procedural rectification. The judgment does not explicitly record further arguments from the revenue on the substantive issues.