TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 1085
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t come within the jurisdiction of the Commissionerate of Dibrugarh, as no taxable event had taken place within the said Commissionerate. 3. For appreciating the said submissions, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the brief facts which led to the filing of the instant writ petition. The petitioner herein is the proprietor of a firm in the name and style of 'M/s. M.T Enterprise'. The petitioner and his firm is registered under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (for short, the 'CGST Act') and the Principal place of business is Techi Building, Model Village, Naharlagun, Papum Pare, Arunachal Pradesh: 791110. The petitioner has also been allotted a GST No. bearing 12AIYPT2833LIZM. As per the said registration certificate, the petitioner's proprietorship firm namely, M/s. M.T. Enterprise do not have any additional place of business in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. It is also seen from Annexure-1 to the writ petition which is a Form 26AS that the petitioner's PAN number is AIYPT2833L and the address mentioned therein is E-I Pang, Sagalee, Pampum Pare district, Sagalee, Arunachal Pradesh 791112. The records further show that the jurisdictional office under the CGS....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s issued at the address where the petitioner had no office. It would also be seen from the impugned order also that the show cause notice admittedly was not served and as such, the respondent authorities had pasted the said show cause notice in the Notice Board of the respondent No. 2. The learned counsel referred to Section 37C (1) (a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, 'the Act of 1944') and submitted that when an order, notice, summons etc., are to be issued in terms with the said Act of 1944, the same can be done so only by sending it by registered post with acknowledgment due or by speed post with proof of delivery or by courier approved by the Central Board of Excise and Customs constituted under the Central Boards of Revenue Act, 1963 to the person for whom it is intended or his authorised agent, if any. (B). The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submitted that in case the service could not be meted out in terms with Section 37C (1) (a) then only in such circumstance, Sub-Clause (b) and (c) of Section 37C (1) of the Act of 1944 can be resorted to. (C). The learned counsel further submitted that the instant writ petition ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax and as such notice was issued to the petitioner in the said address. In addition to that, the learned counsel submitted that the proceedings which were initiated by the Commissionerate of CGST, Itanagar was closed in view of the proceedings being initiated by the Commissioner of the CGST, Dibrugarh. The learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner had an alternative and efficacious remedy to challenge the impugned order before the Customs and Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and the said aspect is also mentioned in the impugned order dated 25.11.2022. ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION: 8. Upon hearing the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, three questions arise for determination: (i). Whether this Court ought to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, in view of the availability of an alternative and efficacious remedy in the form of filing an appeal before the Custom Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal? (ii). Whether the impugned order dated 25.11.2022 is is bad in law on account of non service of show cause notice and an opportunity of hearing being provided to the petitioner? and (iii). Whet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the Permanent Account Number (PAN) of the petitioner provided under the Income Tax Act 1961 also shows that the address of the petitioner is at Papum Pare district in Arunachal Pradesh. This Court has also perused the various notices which have been enclosed as Annexures 6 and 7. The addresses mentioned in those notices were at No. 1 Ghilamara, North Lakhimpur and the petitioner had also stated on oath that the said address is not the address of the petitioner and there is no denial to the same by the respondent authorities. It is also pertinent to observe that in paragraph 11 of the writ petition, the petitioner while dealing with the notices which have been enclosed in Annexures No.6 and 7 stated that they were sent through e-mail, which the petitioner did not have the occasion to notice. In fact, a perusal of the impugned order would also show that it was an admitted fact that the petitioner had no address at the place where the show cause notice was issued. Paragraphs 1.15, 1.16 & 1.17 of the impugned order are quoted hereinbelow: "1.15. The Show Cause Notice was returned undelivered from the address of the Noticee with a remark "Adressee Left, Return to Sender". As ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f of delivery or by courier approved by the Central Board of Excise and Customs constituted under the Central Boards of Revenue Act, 1963], to the person for whom it is intended or his authorized agent, if any; (b) if the decision, order, summons or notice cannot be served in the manner provided in clause (a), by affixing a copy thereof to some conspicuous part of the factory or warehouse or other place of business or usual place of residence of the person for whom such decision, order, summons or notice, as the case may be, is intended; (c) if the decision, order, summons or notice cannot be served in the manner provided in clauses (a) and (b), by affixing a copy thereof on the notice board of the officer or authority who or which passed such decision or order or issued such summons or notice. (2) Every decision or order passed or any summons or notice issued under this Act or the rules made thereunder, shall be deemed to have been served on the date on which the decision, order, summons or notice is tendered or delivered by post [or courier referred to in sub-section (1)] or a copy thereof is affixed in the manner provided in sub-section (1)." 13. A ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e petitioner. 15. In view of the above, this Court, therefore, is of inhesitant view that the impugned order dated 25.11.2022, was passed without affording due opportunity to the petitioner and as such, the same violates the principles of natural justice which is a facet of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The consequential effect of the above opinion of this Court is that this Court can invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in the present facts, which is the question No.(i) so formulated hereinabove. 16. Let this Court now analyse and determine the question No.(iii) so formulated hereinabove. The question No.(iii) pertains to as to whether the Office of the Commissionerate, Central Goods and Service Tax, Dibrugarh Division, would have the jurisdiction over the petitioner. This Court at this stage, finds it relevant to take note of the submission of Mr. SC Keyal, who made a submission on the basis of verbal instructions to the effect that the petitioner had carried out business thereby rendering service within the jurisdiction of the Commissionerate of GST, Dibrugarh Division. The said submission, however, is not based on any documents being plac....