2023 (7) TMI 1333 - HC - GST

Principles of natural justice - Challenge to impugned adjudication order - procedural irregularity in passing the impugned order by contending that in this case preshow cause notice as per the relevant circular was not issued and petitioner intends to rely upon several decisions on this proposition of law - invocation of extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - The impugned adjudication order is an appellable under the statute - The writ court cannot scrutinize the facts on the basis of which respondent authorities concerned has come to the conclusion that the case of the petitioner falls within the exceptions under Section 73(1) of the Act. Petitioner has not approached this Court immediately after getting show-cause notice if at all there was any procedural irregularity in issuing the show-cause notice by not issuing pre-show cause notice - The adjudication order in original has been passed after the petitioner contested the show-cause notice and not being satisfied with the adjudication order after participating in the impugned proceeding, now at this stage petitioner cannot turn around and challenge the impugned order of adjudication, on the ground that in spite of the show-cause notice being issued and he has responded to the same still the impugned adjudication order should be interfered since pre-show cause notice was not issued in this case. The petition is not entertained and is dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are procedural irregularity in passing the adjudication order and invoking the extended period of limitation for initiating the proceeding.

Procedural irregularity in passing the adjudication order:
The petitioner challenged the impugned adjudication order, contending that a preshow cause notice was not issued as per the relevant circular. The petitioner intended to rely upon several decisions on this proposition of law. The respondent CGST authority opposed the writ petition, arguing that the impugned order is appellable under the statute and that the allegation of invoking the extended period of limitation is not sustainable as it falls within the exception under Section 73(1) of the Finance Tax Act, 1994. The respondent further argued that the pre-show cause notice is not mandatory in cases falling under those exceptions. The petitioner, however, argued that the case does not fall within those exceptions. The court, considering the submissions, declined to interfere with the adjudication order for various reasons, including that the impugned order is appellable, and the court cannot scrutinize the facts leading to the conclusion that the case falls within the exceptions under Section 73(1) of the Act.

Invoking the extended period of limitation:
Another issue raised was the invoking of the extended period of limitation for initiating the proceeding. The respondent argued that the extended period of limitation is not applicable in this case as it falls within the exception under Section 73(1) of the Finance Tax Act, 1994. The petitioner contended that the case does not fall within those exceptions. The court, after considering the facts and submissions, dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner did not approach the court immediately after receiving the show-cause notice if there was any procedural irregularity in issuing the notice. Additionally, the court noted that the petitioner participated in the proceeding and contested the show-cause notice before challenging the adjudication order, which cannot be done at this stage. The court also highlighted that the judgments relied upon by the petitioner did not involve immediate challenges to the non-issuance of pre-show cause notice after the issuance of the show-cause notice.