Chhattisgarh State Beverages Corporation Limited vs. Office Of The Principal Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, Chhattisgarh State Beverages Corporation Limited (CSBCL), filed a writ petition before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur. The petition challenged a show cause notice dated January 20, 2009, issued by the Principal Commissioner CGST and Central Excise. The notice sought explanation from CSBCL as to why service tax for the year 2007-2008, along with interest and penalty, should not be recovered, treating CSBCL as a Clearing and Forwarding Agent (C & F Agent). CSBCL argued that this issue had already been decided by a Division Bench of the same High Court in a previous case, Union of India v. Chhattisgarh State Beverages Corporation, which held that CSBCL could not be considered a C & F Agent for the State Government. Despite this prior judgment, the impugned show cause notice was issued.

Held

The Court held that since the petitioner had already submitted its reply to the show cause notice, it would not be appropriate to consider the legality of the notice at this stage. The Court found that all grounds raised by the petitioner in the writ petition could be raised before the adjudicating authority. Therefore, the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to raise all grounds before the adjudicating authority for the redressal of its grievances. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of. The Court did not decide the substantive issue of whether the petitioner was a C & F Agent or the validity of the show cause notice on merits.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned show cause notice dated 20.01.2009, issued by the Respondent, is liable to be quashed along with consequential proceedings, in light of the prior judgment of this Hon'ble Court in Union of India v. Chhattisgarh State Beverages Corporation, Tax Case No. 6/2009 dated 02.05.2013? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the issue of whether it acts as a C & F Agent has already been decided by a Division Bench of the High Court in its favor. Therefore, issuing a fresh show cause notice on the same ground is contrary to the binding precedent. The petitioner relied on the judgment in Union of India v. Chhattisgarh State Beverages Corporation. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent argued that the petitioner had already submitted a reply to the show cause notice, and no order had been passed by the adjudicating authority yet. They contended that the petitioner should raise all its grounds before the adjudicating authority, and therefore, the writ petition should be disposed of as premature.