Biostdt INDIA Limited Th Vikas Kumar Singh Samba vs. Union Of INDIA Th Secretary Ministry Of Finance Deptt Of Revenue And Others

Held

The Court disposed of the petitions by holding that the impugned show cause notices would remain dormant and would not be given effect to until the litigation between the parties pending before the Supreme Court is finally disposed of. The proceedings in the show cause notices will be contingent upon the outcome of the SLPs. The Court further provided that if the show cause notices are proposed to be acted upon, the aggrieved party would be at liberty to challenge them before the appropriate forum. Any excise duty/cess paid by the petitioner in compliance with the notices would remain subject to the ultimate outcome of the Supreme Court litigation. The Court did not decide the merits of the show cause notices themselves, leaving their ultimate validity to be determined by the outcome of the pending SLPs.

Facts

The petitioner, Biostadt India Ltd., challenged three show cause notices issued by respondents 2 and 3. Two notices, dated December 3, 2020, and December 31, 2022, proposed recovery of ₹16,70,28,360/- and ₹5,10,62,240/-, respectively. The third notice, dated December 31, 2020, was for the recovery of a sanctioned amount. These notices were for the recovery of Basic Excise Duty (BED), Education Cess, and Secondary and Higher Education Cess. The respondents stated that these notices were 'protect notices' issued to save litigation and would only be acted upon after the decision of pending Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) between the parties before the Supreme Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned show cause notices, issued for recovery of Basic Excise Duty, Education Cess, and Secondary and Higher Education Cess, are valid and can be given effect to at this stage? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner challenged the validity of the show cause notices. While not explicitly detailed, the challenge implies that the notices should not be acted upon pending the outcome of related litigation. Revenue's Contention: The respondents argued that the notices were merely 'protect notices' issued to save litigation and would only be given effect to after the Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) pending between the parties before the Supreme Court are decided. They did not argue for immediate enforcement of the notices.