2024 (7) TMI 482 - HC - Service Tax

Maintainability of petition - time limitation - section 73 (4B) (a) and (b) of the Finance Act, 1994 - whether the jurisdiction could be transferred by virtue of a corrigendum? - HELD THAT - When the appellant has questioned the validity of the adjudication on the ground of limitation, such issue can be adjudicated in a writ petition based on affidavits. Therefore, the respondents/department should file their affidavit in opposition in the writ petition and the writ petition should be heard and decided on merits. In the meantime, if the show-cause notice is adjudicated by the authority, then the entire writ proceedings would become infructuous. Therefore, the adjudication proceedings by the adjudicating authority at Kolkata should be deferred and await the decision in the writ petition. The order passed in the writ petition by the learned Single Bench is set aside and the respondent/adjudicating authority at Kolkata is directed to defer the adjudication of the show-cause notice and there will be a direction to the department to file their affidavit in opposition in the writ petition within a period of three weeks from date - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order declining interim relief in writ petition challenging proceedings initiated by respondent authorities on limitation grounds.
2. Validity of jurisdiction transfer through corrigendum.
3. Adjudication process becoming time-barred.
4. Deferral of adjudication pending writ petition decision.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the order of the Single Bench declining interim relief in a writ petition challenging proceedings initiated by the respondent authorities on the grounds of limitation. The appellant argued that the time limits mentioned in the relevant Act must be adhered to, citing a circular issued by the CBEC and a relevant court decision. The Court found that the issue of limitation can be adjudicated in a writ petition based on affidavits, and directed the respondents to file their affidavit in opposition for the writ petition to be heard and decided on merits.

2. The appellant questioned the validity of jurisdiction transfer through a corrigendum. The appellant had received a notice for a personal hearing from the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax, Intelligence, Chennai Zonal Unit, which was later corrected to show the Principal Commissioner of Central Goods & Services Tax, Kolkata, North as the adjudicating authority. The Court did not provide a specific ruling on this issue in the judgment.

3. The appellant contended that the adjudication process had become time-barred, referring to section 73 (4) (b) of the Finance Act. Despite submitting representations asserting the time-barred nature of the proceedings, the adjudicating authority continued to fix dates for personal hearings. The Court acknowledged the appellant's argument on the issue of limitation and directed the adjudicating authority to defer the adjudication pending the decision in the writ petition.

4. The Court emphasized that if the show-cause notice is adjudicated before the writ petition is decided, the writ proceedings would become infructuous. Therefore, the adjudication proceedings by the adjudicating authority at Kolkata were directed to be deferred, awaiting the decision in the writ petition. The respondents were instructed to file their affidavit in opposition within three weeks, with a provision for a reply to be filed within one week thereafter. The writ petition was scheduled to be listed before the Single Bench for further proceedings.