Sri Pulin Borah Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY OF GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ROOM NO. 66, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶10

2:THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX GUWAHATI-I DIVISION GST BHAWAN KEDAR ROAD MACHKHOWA GUWAHATI- 781001

¶11

3:THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF GOODS AND SERVICE TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE DIVISION-I GUWAHATI GST BHAWAN KEDAR ROAD MACHKHOWA GUWAHATI- 781001

¶12

4:THE SUPERINTENDENT (TECH-II) CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX GUWAHATI DIVISION-IGST BHAWAN

¶13

Page No.# 2/4

¶14

KEDAR ROAD MACHKHOWA GUWAHATI- 781000

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R S MISHRA, MS B SARMA,MS. M DEY

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, GST

¶17

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

¶18

ORDER

¶19

11.03.2026

¶20

Heard Shri R. S. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri S. C. Keyal, learned Senior Standing Counsel, C.G.S.T.

¶21

2. Considering the subject matter involved and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is taken up for disposal at the motion stage.

¶22

3. The grievance of the petitioner pertains to a recovery notice dated 29.01.2026 with the contention that prior to such notice, no intimation of any nature was served upon him. For ready reference, the relief prayed for is extracted herein below:

¶23

“In the premises aforesaid, it is therefore prayed that Your Lordships may be pleased to consider the above, call for the records, issue a rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why;

¶24

(I) The recovery proceeding initiated vide Notice issued under C. No. V(30)01/Misc/Recovery/Div-1/Ghy /2024-25/1720 dated 29.01.2026 by Respondent No.4 (ANNEXURE-A)

¶25

(II) Order-in-Original No. 400/AC/DIV-1/CGST/2021-22 dated 08.02.2022

¶26

Page No.# 3/4

¶27

(Annexure-C) passed by the Respondent No.3 shall not be set aside and further as to why.

¶28

(III) The respondents authorities shall not directed to furnish the copy of the show cause notice to the Petitioner and adjudicate the show cause notice after granting an opportunity submitting reply to the said show cause notice and also upon hearing the matter adjudicate the matter afresh and upon such cause or causes that may be shown hearing the parties perusing the records further be pleased to make the rule absolute and/or pass any other order or orders as Your Lordship deem fit and proper.

¶29

-AND-

¶30

It is further prayed that pending disposal of this rule, the Recovery Notice under C.No.V(30)01/Misc/ Recovery/Div-1/Ghy/2024-25/1720 dated 29.01.2026 issued by Respondent No.4 (ANNEXURE-A) as well as Order-inOriginal No. 400/AC/DIV-1/CGST/2021-22 dated 08.02.2022 passed by the Respondent No.3 (Annexure-C) may be stayed and/or the respondent authorities may be directed not to take any steps for recovery of impugned demand.”

¶31

4. Shri Mishra, the learned counsel by drawing the attention of this Court to the averments made in the petition has submitted that for the first time, the petitioner was aware of a proceeding on receipt of the recovery notice.

¶32

5. On the other hand, Shri Keyal, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the final order was indeed issued to the petitioner by registered post. However, he is not equipped with instructions with regard to the aspect of actual service of notice. Though a copy of the order dated 08.02.2022 was given to the petitioner on submission of representation on 03.02.2026.

¶33

Page No.# 4/4

¶34

6. Considering the aforesaid factual position, this Court is of the opinion that instead of keeping this writ petition pending, interest of justice would be served if the proceeding is directed to be done afresh whereby the petitioner would get an opportunity to submit his show cause reply.

¶35

7. Accordingly, the Recovery Notice dated 29.01.2026 is interfered with and the proceeding is directed to be initiated afresh by issuance of a copy of the original show cause notice. Since the petitioner is already represented and as undertaken by Shri Mishra, the learned counsel the show cause notice would be collected by the petitioner from the office of the respondent no. 3 within a period of 1 week from today, whereafter he will file reply within the time prescribed in the said notice. It is made clear that the present interference is only on the aspect of not granting any opportunity and will not influence either of the parties in the adjudication of the dispute.

¶36

8. It is needless to state that the original order dated 08.02.2022 is also interfered with.

¶37

9. Writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

Comparing Assistant

Sri Pulin Borah v. the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Pulin Borah v. the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chanmahammad Ali and 134 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Nikhil Narayan Deb Choudhury Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Altaf Hussain and 6 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

M/S Samsir Uddin Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

M/S St Store Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

On the Death of MD Kaddus Ali His Son Namely Abdul Malek and 31 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 62 Ors.