Shree Mahavira Buildwell PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner Of Central G S T And Central Excise And Ors

Held

The Court agreed with the respondent department's objection regarding the availability of an alternative statutory remedy. The Court held that the petitioner could raise all the issues, including those already raised and any other relevant issues, in the statutory appeal available under the Finance Act. The Court noted that the statutory period for filing the appeal had expired while the matter was pending before the High Court. To address this, the Court granted the petitioner four weeks to file the appeal, along with a petition for condonation of delay. The appellate authority was directed to consider the appeal on its merits, without prejudice to the outcome of the present proceedings and keeping in mind the pendency of the matter before the High Court. The Department was restrained from taking coercive measures for four weeks. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations.

Facts

The petitioner, Shree Mahavira Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., challenged an order dated 27.06.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, Patna (Respondent No. 1). This order confirmed a demand of service tax for the periods 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15. The petitioner sought indulgence from the High Court through a writ petition, bypassing the statutory appeal remedy. The petitioner raised three specific issues concerning the show cause notice and the non-consideration of exemption notifications. The respondent department argued that the order was appealable and that the issues raised by the petitioner had been considered by the authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the show cause notice issued by the revenue was premeditated and in the nature of a post-decisional show cause, as argued by the petitioner? 2. Whether the show cause notice was issued beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, as contended by the petitioner? 3. Whether the exemption notifications dated 24.05.2010 and 20.06.2012, enclosed with Annexure-4 series, were not considered by the revenue, as argued by the petitioner? Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the show cause notice was premeditated, issued beyond the period of limitation under Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, and that crucial exemption notifications were not considered. They sought to bypass the statutory appeal route. Revenue's Contentions: The respondent department argued that the impugned order was appealable and that the authority had applied its mind to the issues raised by the petitioner. They contended that if the petitioner was dissatisfied, the remedy lay in a statutory appeal under the Finance Act.