Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Private Limited, challenged an order dated August 21, 2024, and a summary of order dated August 29, 2024, passed by the Joint Commissioner (Respondent No. 3) under Section 73 read with Sections 122 and 50 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The impugned orders imposed liability for tax, interest, and penalty for the financial year 2019-2020. The petitioner contended that the proceedings violated principles of natural justice. A show cause notice was issued on May 20, 2024, to which the petitioner responded on July 15, 2024. Subsequently, an order was passed on August 21, 2024. Inadvertently, a second show cause notice was issued on August 22, 2024, due to a technical glitch, followed by another order on August 29, 2024.

Held

The Court held that once a final order was passed on August 21, 2024, any subsequent actions taken by the respondents are nullities and are accordingly set aside. The Court directed that the petitioner is at liberty to invoke the remedy of appeal before the appellate authority to challenge the final demand order dated August 21, 2024. The appellate authority was directed to take into account the time spent in the present writ petition for the purpose of condonation of delay under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. If any hurdles arise in filing the appeal against the order dated August 21, 2024, the concerned officer is to redress them to enable the petitioner to file the appeal. The appellate authority was further requested to decide the petitioner's appeal within a reasonable period of three months from the date of receipt of the memorandum of appeal. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated August 21, 2024, and the summary of order dated August 29, 2024, passed by the Joint Commissioner are liable to be quashed for gross violation of the principles of natural justice, particularly in light of the procedural irregularities concerning the show cause notices and the final order, as contemplated under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the entire proceeding initiated and concluded is non-est, illegal, and without jurisdiction because the show cause notice dated August 22, 2024, fixed the same date for reply, which is in teeth of Section 73(8) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Furthermore, the impugned order dated August 21, 2024, preceded the show cause notice dated August 22, 2024, rendering the entire procedure an eyewash and a mere formality, denying the petitioner any opportunity to present its case. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state.