Court dismisses challenge to show cause notice, emphasizes limited intervention in tax assessments. Petitioner granted 15 days to respond.

The Court declined to intervene in the challenge to the show cause notice, emphasizing that it would only do so in exceptional cases without jurisdiction. As the periods covered by the two notices were distinct, focusing on different tax assessments, the Court dismissed the writ petition. The petitioner was granted the opportunity to respond to the notice within fifteen days, with the Competent Authority to consider their reply. The Court did not conclusively decide on the matter, leaving it for the Authority to determine in accordance with the law, and no costs were awarded.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to show cause notice based on same cause of action and extended period of lockdown.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the show cause notice, arguing that it was bad in law on two counts. Firstly, the petitioner contended that being vexed on the same cause of action twice would violate Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. Secondly, the Department was accused of taking advantage of the extended period of lockdown after a similar issue had been adjudicated previously. The petitioner's counsel referenced an earlier order by the Authority which had dropped proceedings after considering objections related to service tax not being paid on taxable services provided by the petitioner. The Authority had deemed the show cause notice for demanding service tax as unsustainable. The Department's plea that they were not aware of the petitioner's job work activities was considered perverse, as the Adjudicating Authority had already acknowledged the nature of the petitioner's work. The petitioner relied on legal precedents to support their arguments.

The Department's advocate argued that the periods covered by the earlier and present show cause notices did not overlap. The earlier notice pertained to service tax payment for 2012-13 and 2013-14, while the present notice dealt with an erroneous assessment of CENVAT credit for 2014-15. As the periods differed, the Department believed that the earlier order would not hinder issuing the present show cause notice.

The Court emphasized that it would only intervene in exceptional cases where a show cause notice was issued without jurisdiction. The party receiving the notice had the opportunity to respond and contest it on merits. The Court noted that the periods covered by the two show cause notices were distinct, with the earlier notice focusing on 2012-13 and 2013-14, while the present notice concerned 2014-15. As there was no overlap in periods, the Court declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction. Legal precedents were cited to support this decision, highlighting the importance of jurisdiction and limitation in similar cases.

Ultimately, the Court disposed of the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to file a reply to the show cause notice and present their stance. If a reply was submitted within fifteen days, it would be considered by the Competent Authority. However, if no reply was filed within the stipulated time, the Competent Authority was directed to proceed in accordance with the law. The Court clarified that it had not conclusively opined on the matter, leaving all contentions open for the Competent Authority to decide in accordance with the law. No costs were awarded in this case.

---