Shri Tapash Kumar Saha vs. Commissioner (Appeal) And Ors.

Held

The Court did not decide the merits of the case. After hearing arguments, the petitioner sought liberty to approach the learned CESTAT at Kolkata Bench for preferring an appeal under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994, with all available grounds of law and fact, including the plea for condonation of delay. The counsel for the respondents-revenue did not object to this prayer. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty to approach the CESTAT within two weeks. The Court clarified that the petitioner was free to raise all grounds of law and fact, including jurisdictional issues, and that the High Court had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The specific findings on the issues of limitation, natural justice, or the validity of the show cause notice and orders were therefore not made by this Court.

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Tapash Kumar Saha, challenged a Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice dated April 12, 2022, issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Respondent No. 2) for the financial years 2016-17 (October 2016 to March 2017) and 2017-18 (up to June 30, 2017). The petitioner contended that the extended period of limitation was wrongly invoked and the notice was based solely on a 26AS statement without investigation into alleged suppression. The petitioner also challenged the Order in Original dated December 29, 2023, passed by Respondent No. 3, which confirmed the demand for tax, interest, and penalty, arguing it failed to consider the petitioner's reply and violated principles of natural justice and limitation. The appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) was dismissed on August 21, 2024, for being filed beyond the prescribed period. The petitioner then approached the High Court via a writ petition, seeking to challenge these orders on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and violation of natural justice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the extended period of limitation was wrongly invoked by the Assistant Commissioner in the Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice dated April 12, 2022, for the financial years 2016-17 and 2017-18, thereby raising a question of law concerning the invocation of Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 (or equivalent provisions under the earlier regime)? 2. Whether the Order in Original dated December 29, 2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, is liable to be set aside for violating the principles of natural justice by failing to consider the petitioner's reply and for being issued beyond the period of limitation, raising a mixed question of law and fact? 3. Whether the appellate authority erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal dated August 21, 2024, on the ground that it was filed beyond the period of two months plus one month condonable period, raising a question of law regarding the interpretation of appeal filing timelines? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the extended period of limitation was wrongly invoked and the show cause notice was issued without proper investigation. They also contended that the Order in Original was passed without considering their reply, violating natural justice, and that the proceedings were time-barred. The dismissal of the appeal by the appellate authority was also challenged as erroneous. Revenue's arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the revenue side regarding the merits of the case, but their counsel did not object to the petitioner's prayer to approach the CESTAT.