Writ petition challenging a GST show cause notice issued by the Joint Commissioner demanding service tax for July 2017 to March 2019 on grounds of alleged suppression. The court held the challenge premature, directed the petitioner to raise all defences before the adjudicating authority, and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1618 OF 2024
Route Mobile Ltd., Malad, Mumbai ] Through Mr. Rajdip Kumar Gupta ] .. Petitioner Versus 1. Office of Commissioner, ] GST & C. Ex. Audit III, Parel, Mumbai ] 2. Office of Joint Commissioner, ] GST & C. Ex. Audit III, Parel, Mumbai ] 3. Office of Assistant Commissioner, ] Circle 1, CGST Audit III, Parel, Mumbai ] 4. Office of Commissioner, ] CGST, Andheri, Mumbai ] 5. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, ] Department of Revenue, New Delhi ] .. Respondents
Mr. Rajat Bose (through V.C.) with Mr. Ankit Sachdeva, Mr. Rohit Iyengar and Ms. Madri Chandak, Advocates, i/by Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co., for the Petitioner.
Mr. Subir Kumar with Mr. Abhishek Mishra, Mr. Abhinav Palsikar and Ms. Ashita Aggarwal, Advocates for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. S.D. Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR & RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ
DATE : 3RD DECEMBER 2024. [ THROUGH HYBRID HEARING ]
P.C. :
dated 21st December 2023 that has been issued by the Joint Commissioner,
Goods and Service Tax and Commissioner of Excise, Audit-III, Mumbai
1/6
909-WP-1618-2024.doc Dixit
calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the amount of goods and service tax payable from July 2017 to March 2019 should not be recovered in terms of Section 74(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 along with interest in terms of Section 50(1) of the Act of 2017 along with penalty.
and thereafter adjudicated, there was no jurisdiction whatsoever for the Joint Commissioner to issue the impugned show cause notices alleging suppression of true facts from the Department warranting recovery of the
2/6
909-WP-1618-2024.doc Dixit
amount of goods and service tax for the period from July 2017 to March 2018. All facts were available with the Department and such demand could have been made in the said show cause notices. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Nizam Sugar Factory Vs. Collector of Central Excise, AP, 2006 (197) E.L.T. 465 as well as the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in The Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II Vs. Cona Industries and Ors., 2017 (352) E.L.T. 12 (Bom.), it was submitted that the subject show cause notice could not have been issued on the basis of facts that were within the knowledge of the Department. It was further submitted that there was no jurisdiction with the Joint Commissioner to extend the statutory period of adjudication and such power was conferred only on the Court under Section 75(2) of the Act of 2017. Since the period of adjudication had expired in December 2023, the show cause notices were liable to be quashed.
authority to issue the show cause notice and it was not the case of inherent lack of jurisdiction. It was further submitted that the earlier show cause notice pertained to the period prior to the goods and service tax era
3/6
909-WP-1618-2024.doc Dixit
that was introduced in the year 2017. The issue pertained to the liability to pay service tax on the services rendered and it would be necessary to adjudicate the show cause notices. Placing reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Munshi Ram and Ors. Vs. Municipal Committee, Chheharta, (1979) 3 SCC 83 and Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. State of Orissa and Ors., (1983) 2 SCC 433 as well as the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench in Dow Chemical International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, NS-II, Special Investigation and Intelligence Branch (X) and Anr. (Civil Writ Petition No.11178 of 2024, decided on 21st October 2024), it was submitted that there was no case for interference at this stage. He thus submitted that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed.
4/6
909-WP-1618-2024.doc Dixit
Commissioner had no authority in law to issue the impugned show cause notice. The fact that there was an investigation initiated during the period from April 2018 to March 2019 on 18th September 2019, the impugned show cause notice requires adjudication.
5/6
909-WP-1618-2024.doc Dixit
permissible defences. By clarifying that the observations made in this order shall not come in the way of either the petitioner or the Adjudicating Authority and by keeping all challenges open, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
[ RAJESH S. PATIL, J. ]
[ A.S. CHANDURKAR, J. ]
Digitally signed by SNEHA SNEHA ABHAY 909-WP-1618-2024.doc ABHAY DIXIT DIXIT Date: Dixit 2024.12.09 16:57:47 +0530
6/6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging only the issuance of a GST show cause notice under Section 74(1) is maintainable before adjudication.
Whether the Joint Commissioner lacked authority to issue the show cause notice alleging suppression of facts.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nizam Sugar Factory Vs. Collector of Central Excise, APDistinguished¶6
2006 (197) E.L.T. 465
Dow Chemical International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, NS-II, Special Investigation and Intelligence Branch (X) and Anr.Applied¶6
(Civil Writ Petition No.11178 of 2024, decided on 21st October 2024)
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Route Mobile Ltd.
Office of Commissioner, GST & C. Ex. Audit III, Parel, Mumbai
Office of Joint Commissioner, GST & C. Ex. Audit III, Parel, Mumbai
Office of Assistant Commissioner, Circle 1, CGST Audit III, Parel, Mumbai
Office of Commissioner, CGST, Andheri, Mumbai
Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs
A.S. Chandurkar
Rajesh S. Patil
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
