2025 (7) TMI 643 - HC - Service Tax

HC dismisses writ petition challenging Finance Act Order despite alleged Section 73(4B) violations, directs statutory appeal

Dulal Chandra Mech Versus The Union Of India, The Principal Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Dibrugarh, The Deputy Commissioner Of Central Tax Tinsukia, The Assistant Commissioner Of Central Tax Tinsukia.

Dulal Chandra Mech Versus The Union Of India, The Principal Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Dibrugarh, The Deputy Commissioner Of Central Tax ... 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED- Whether the Order in Original dated 28.06.2024 confirming demand under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 was validly passed within the prescribed limitation period under Section 73(4B) of the Finance Act, 1994.- Whether there was a violation of Clause 14.10 of the Master Circular No. 1053/02/2017-CX F.No.96/1/2017-CX.I dated 10.03.2017, specifically regarding the timing of communication of the decision after the conclusion of the hearing.- Whether the Order in Original complied with the requirement of determination under Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, particularly concerning the recoverability of service tax as alleged in the show cause notice issued under Section 73(1).- Whether the impugned Order in Original suffers from any violation of principles of natural justice or jurisdictional error.- Whether the writ petition is maintainable in the presence of an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISLimitation under Section 73(4B) of the Finance Act, 1994The legal framework mandates that the adjudicating authority must pass the Order in Original within one year from the date of service of the show cause notice as per Section 73(4B). The petitioner challenged the impugned order on the ground that this statutory time limit was breached.The Court examined the timeline of events: the show cause notice was issued on 24.08.2019, the writ petition was filed but dismissed for want of prosecution, and a personal hearing was held on 27.02.2024. The Order in Original was passed on 28.06.2024, which prima facie appears to be beyond the one-year limit.However, the Court noted that the petitioner had not pursued the writ petition effectively and that the periods spent in the writ proceedings could be excluded from the limitation period. The Court found no substantive violation of the limitation period that would vitiate the order.Compliance with Clause 14.10 of the Master Circular No. 1053/02/2017-CXThe petitioner contended that the decision was communicated beyond the prescribed time after the hearing had concluded, violating Clause 14.10 of the Master Circular dated 10.03.2017.The Court reviewed this contention and found no material to establish that such delay amounted to a breach of procedural fairness or caused prejudice to the petitioner. The Court emphasized that the procedural timelines in the Master Circular do not override statutory provisions and that delay in communication alone, absent prejudice, does not invalidate the order.Determination under Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994Section 73(2) requires the adjudicating authority to determine the amount of service tax payable after considering the representations of the assessee. The petitioner argued that the impugned order lacked such determination and that no service tax was recoverable under the show cause notice issued under Section 73(1).The Court examined the Order in Original and the reply filed by the petitioner. It found that the authority had indeed considered the petitioner's submissions and made a reasoned determination confirming a demand of Rs. 19,60,023/- including cess. The Court held that the statutory requirement of determination was fulfilled.Principles of Natural Justice and JurisdictionThe Court considered whether the impugned order violated principles of natural justice or was passed without jurisdiction. The petitioner did not demonstrate any denial of hearing or bias. The Court found that the petitioner was afforded a personal hearing and an opportunity to file replies, and that the authority acted within jurisdiction.Maintainability of Writ Petition in Presence of Alternative RemedyThe Court noted that the Order in Original is appealable, and the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal. The Court opined that in such circumstances, it would not exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.Accordingly, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition and relegated the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. The respondent did not oppose this course of action.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS'It is the further opinion of this Court that in the present case, it cannot be said that there is any violations of principles of natural justice or that the authority who passed the impugned Order in Original has acted without jurisdiction or that any fundamental right of the petitioner has been violated.''In the given facts of the present case, this Court is not inclined to exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, more particularly, when an efficacious and alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner.''The periods spent before this Court in the present procedure may be excluded from the prescribed period of limitation.'The Court established the principle that procedural delays or non-compliance with timelines under circulars do not necessarily invalidate orders if no prejudice is caused and statutory mandates are otherwise complied with.The Court confirmed that the adjudicating authority's determination under Section 73(2) was adequate and that the impugned order was passed within jurisdiction and following principles of natural justice.Finally, the Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy, and accordingly, the petitioner was directed to pursue the appeal process.