Dismissed¶24

Chandra Sekhar Singh v. Union of India and Ors.

Calcutta HC3 Jul 2025WPA/228/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ex parte service tax adjudication; demand Rs. 3,85,041/- plus equivalent penalty; Finance Act 1994 sections 73(1) and 78; CGST Act 2017 section 174; Indian Evidence Act 1872 section 68; Service Tax Rules 1994 rule 6; prayer to treat order as show cause notice refused; writ dismissed for want of interference despite alternative remedy; appealability and two-year delay; Glaxo Smith Kline (2020 (36) GSTL 305 SC) and unreported MAT 2387 of 2023 cited by counsel; liberty to appeal; WPA 228 of 2024; decided 03.07.2025; Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.

What did the court decide?

None; writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs, with liberty to prefer the statutory appeal and to plead the pendency of the writ petition in justification of any delay in appealing. ¶24

Chandra Sekhar Singh Vs Union of India and Ors. — GST and Indirect Tax | Calcutta HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs, with liberty to prefer the statutory appeal and to plead the pendency of the writ petition in justification of any delay in appealing.

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of certiorari should issue quashing the ex parte order dated 21st January, 2022 and directing that it be treated as a show cause notice, with an adequate opportunity of hearing before the adjudicating authority and a reasoned, speaking order thereafter. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

On the face of the impugned order, letters fixing personal hearings on 9th December, 2021, 23rd December, 2021 and 19th January, 2022 were duly sent to the petitioner's registered address, yet he failed to appear, leading to the ex parte order.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

The order dated 21.01.2022 is appealable; therefore, admittedly, there exists an efficacious alternative remedy.

¶22

Key takeaways

No interference is called for and the writ petition is dismissed.ratio¶24
Although the order was passed during the Covid-19 pandemic, the petitioner was not vigilant in prosecuting the matter.obiter¶23
The dismissal shall not preclude the petitioner from preferring an appeal before the appropriate authority in accordance with law.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WPA 228 of 2024) sought certiorari to quash an ex parte order dated 21.01.2022 of the Assistant Commissioner, Central Tax, Shibpur Division, Howrah, demanding service tax of Rs. 3,85,041/- with accrued interest and an equivalent penalty under section 73(1) and section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017 (with violations alleged under section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994), and prayed that the order be treated as a show cause notice with a fresh opportunity of hearing. Personal-hearing notices for 9th December, 2021, 23rd December, 2021 and 19th January, 2022 had been sent to the registered address and gone unattended. Holding the order appealable (limitation sixty days plus thirty condonable days) and the petitioner's approach after almost two years non-vigilant, the court found an efficacious alternative remedy and declined interference, dismissing the writ petition without costs while leaving the petitioner free to appeal and to plead the pendency of the writ petition to justify appellate delay.

¶1

03.07.2025 4 Ct.No.7 sdas

¶2

WPA 228 of 2024

¶3

Chandra Sekhar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶4

Mr. Kalyan Kumar Chakraborty Mr. Kashinath Bhattacharya Mr. Gopal Krishna Sarkar ..…for the petitioner

¶5

Mr. Tilak Mitra Mr. Prithu Dudhoria ..…. for the Union of India

¶6

Mr. Bhaskar Prosad Banerjee Mr. Tapan Bhanja ….. for the CGST Authority

¶7

The present writ petition has been instituted by the petitioner seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the ex parte order dated 21st January, 2022, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Tax, Shibpur Division, Howrah, functioning under the jurisdiction of the CGST and Central Excise Commissionerate, Howrah.

¶8

By the order dated 21.01.2022, a demand for service tax amounting to Rs. 3,85,041/-, along with accrued interest, was raised against the petitioner under the provisions of section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, and section 174 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the CGST Act).

¶9

¶10

Furthermore, the said order also imposes a penalty of an equivalent amount, i.e., Rs. 3,85,041/-, upon the petitioner by invoking the provisions of section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, read with section 174 of the CGST Act, for violation of the provisions of section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, as well as on account of alleged non-payment of service tax.

¶11

Mr. Chakraborty, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that by the impugned ex parte order dated 21st January, 2022, the petitioner has been directed to pay service tax amounting to Rs. 3,85,041/-, along with applicable interest, and a penalty of an equivalent sum, i.e., Rs. 3,85,041/-. He submits that an appropriate direction may kindly be issued to treat the order dated 21st January, 2022 as a show cause notice, and to afford the petitioner an adequate opportunity of hearing before the adjudicating authority. It is further submitted that the adjudicating authority may also be directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order upon granting such opportunity and after considering the submissions that may be made by the petitioner.

¶12

He cites an unreported decision by the Hon’ble Division Bench headed by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice in MAT 2387 of 2023 and contends that in similar situation, the Hon’ble Division Bench passed an order to treat the

¶13

¶14

order as show cause notice and then to take next follow up action after affording an opportunity of hearing.

¶15

Mr. Banerjee, learned Advocate representing the CGST Authority, vehemently opposes the contention advanced by Mr. Chakraborty.

¶16

Mr. Banerjee, draws my attention to the relevant portion of the adjudication order dated 21st January, 2022, and contends that sufficient opportunity was provided to the petitioner to appear before the adjudicating authority. However, despite receipt of notice from the adjudicating authority, the petitioner failed to appear. Finding no other alternative, the adjudicating authority was compelled to pass the ex-parte order.

¶17

He further submits that the said order was passed as far back as in 2022 and is an appealable one. The prescribed period of limitation for preferring an appeal is sixty days, with a further condonable period of thirty days. However, the petitioner did not take any steps to prefer such an appeal. After waiting for almost two years, the petitioner has filed this writ petition in 2024, seeking an order to treat the said order as a show cause notice. He asserts that such a prayer cannot be accepted. In support of his contention, he relies on a decision reported in 2020 (36) G.S.T.L. 305 (S.C.) [Asstt. Commr. (CT), LTU, Kakinada vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd.] , which lays down that once the statutory period for

¶18

¶19

preferring an appeal has expired, a writ petition should not be entertained.

¶20

Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the materials on record.

¶21

The order impugned in the present writ petition reflects that letters fixing dates for personal hearing were duly sent to the registered address of the petitioner, scheduling hearings on 9th December, 2021, 23rd December, 2021, and 19th January, 2022, thereby calling upon the petitioner to appear before the adjudicating authority. However, despite receipt of such letters and/or notices, the petitioner failed to appear on the scheduled dates. As a consequence, and in view of the petitioner's continued absence, the adjudicating authority proceeded to pass an ex parte order dated 21st January, 2022.

¶22

I have been informed that order dated 21.01.2022 is appealable order. Therefore, admittedly, there exists an efficacious alternative remedy.

¶23

Mr. Chakraborty, has pointed out that the said order was passed during the Covid-19 pandemic. Nonetheless, it appears that the petitioner was not vigilant in prosecuting the matter.

¶24

In view thereof, I am of the view that no interference is called for in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to the costs.

¶25

¶26

However, this order shall not preclude the petitioner in preferring the appeal before the appropriate authority in accordance with law.

¶27

It is clarified that the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise the issue of pendency of this writ petition to justify the delay in preferring the appeal.

¶28

(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)

Chandra Sekhar Singh v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra Sekhar Singh v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manatosh Paul Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

M/S Rojina Construction and Another Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Narayan Chandra Ghosh Vs Food Corporation of India and Ors.

Dulal Chandra Brahma Vs Smt. Annapurna Brahma

Nirupama Das Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Srivatsan Vs State of West Bengal & Anr.