M/S.Unique Electronics vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of CGST And C.Excise

Facts

M/s. Unique Electronics, the petitioner, filed a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Original dated June 24, 2022, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Trichy. The petitioner contended that two show cause notices were issued on the same date, leading to two separate orders confirming identical demands for the same tax periods (2015-16 to 2017-18 up to June 30, 2017) under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. The petitioner had already filed an appeal against the order dated June 30, 2022, before the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), having deposited 7.5% of the disputed demand as per Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The court noted the duplication in demands.

Held

The Court held that there was a duplication in the demand confirmed by the impugned order dated June 24, 2022, and another demand order dated June 30, 2022, both arising from show cause notices dated April 24, 2021. Recognizing this duplication, the Court decided to remit the case back to the respondent to pass a fresh order in lieu of the impugned order dated June 24, 2022. The respondent was directed to consider whether the demand confirmed on June 30, 2022, for which an appeal was allegedly filed, was indeed the same. The petitioner was given thirty days to file a reply to the show cause notices, treating the impugned order as an addendum. The respondent was to pass a final order on merits within three months of receiving the reply, after giving due notice to the petitioner. Failure by the petitioner to comply would allow the respondent to proceed with recovery as if the writ petition was dismissed. The Court did not decide on the merits of the tax demand itself.

Key Issues

1. Whether the issuance of two separate orders confirming identical demands for the same tax period, arising from two show cause notices issued on the same date, is legally sustainable? (Question of law, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Petitioner's argument: The petitioner argued that the issuance of two separate orders for identical demands for the same period, stemming from two show cause notices issued on the same date, constitutes an illegality and amounts to double taxation. They highlighted that an appeal had already been filed against one of the orders, and the deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, had been met. Respondent's argument: The respondent, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel, did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's claim of duplication in the provided judgment text. The court proceeded based on the petitioner's submissions and the apparent duplication.