AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 1035
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2023 , W. P. (T) No. 6464 of 2023 , W. P. (T) No. 6465 of 2023 - -<br>GST<br>HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY And HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner : Mr. Kartik Kurmy, Adv. Mr. Nitin Kr.Pasari, Adv Ms. Sidhi Jalan, Adv For the Resp.-UOI : Mr. Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Adv For the CGST : Mr. Amit Kumar, Sr. S.C. CGST For the DGGI : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, Adv. For the DVC : Mrs. Debolina Sen Hirani, Adv. ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. At the outset, Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Sr. S.C representing the revenue has raised a preliminary objection to the extent that the petitioner has challenged the show cause notice in the instant case circumventing the procedure of the CGST/JGST Act. As a matter of fac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the appellant should first raise all the objections before the Authority who have issued the show-cause notice and in case any adverse order is passed against the appellant, then liberty has been granted to approach the High Court ... ... in our view, the High Court was absolutely right in dismissing the writ petition against a mere show-cause notice." 3. He further submits that the question of proper officer raised by the petitioner in the instant application has been dealt with in the case of Yasho Industries Limited Versus Union of India reported in 2021 SCC Online Guj 3131; wherein at para 13 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: "13. From the bare reading of section 70 of the CGST Act, it clearly emerges that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a proper officer in relation to the function to be performed under the CGST Act as contemplated under section 2(91), and as such, was entitled to issue summons under section 70 of the CGST Act in connection with the inquiry initiated against the petitioner." 4. On the question of extended period of limitation, Mr. Pati referred the judgment passed in the case of ITW Signode India Ltd. Versus Collector of Central Excise reported in (2004) 3 SCC 48; wherein at para 66 and 67 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: "66. It is, therefore, evident that the contention of the appellant was that Rule 9(2) cited in the show-cause notice was not applicable. But, unfortunately, despite the same it had not been adverted to by the Tribuna....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nting the petitioner-company in all these writ applications contended that the impugned show cause notice is completely without jurisdiction and is an abuse process of law. It is true that normally writ court should not interfere at the stage of issuance of show-cause; however, it is also a settled principle of law that the aforesaid rule is not without exception and in the instant case, the show cause notice has been issued without jurisdiction. He further submits that in the instant case, a composite supply principal for transportation of power plant Ash up to distances of 50 km is sought to be taxed under heading 9997 i.e. the other services and heading no. 99671 which is for cargo handling service; which is a pure question of law, as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs". 7. The stand of the petitioner that the impugned show cause notice is completely without jurisdiction and is an abuse of the process of law; it is profitable to refer the judgment rendered in the case of UOI Vs. Vicco Laboratories reported in (2007) 13 SCC 270, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held at Para 31 that normally writ court should not interfere at the stage of issuance of show cause notice which is the normal rule; however, the said rule is not without exceptions. Where a show cause notice is issued either without jurisdiction or in an abuse of the process of law, certainly or in that case, the writ court should not hesitate to interfere even at the stage of show cause notice. It should be prima facie established that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of its power under Article 226. In view of aforesaid discussions and the decision referred to herein above, the judgment relied upon by the Respondent is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. 9. Further, the impugned show cause notice has been issued under Section 74 of the Act. This Court in the case of Central Coalfields Ltd. Vs. UOI reported in (2024) 14 Centax 307 (Jhar.) following judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of International Merchandising Co. Vs. CST reported in (2022) 1 Centax 31 (S.C.), has held under Para 21 that where case involves interpretation issue, extended period of limitation is not invokable. In the above back ground of the case, judgment in the case of ITW Signode India Lt....