TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 265
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....N. Singh, Additional Solicitor General. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD) Heard Mr. Aditya Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. K.N. Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General for the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) and Central Excise (CX). 2. In this writ application, the petitioner has challenged the order-in-original vide No. 103/AC/CGST-PCD/PAT/2024-25 dated 23.09.2024 (Annexure 'P2') passed by Respondent No. 2. The petitioner has also prayed for restraining the respondents from taking any coercive action against the petitioner for recovery of any amount of service tax, interest and penalty, in terms of Annexure 'P2'. Brief Facts of the Case 3. By the impugned order,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....). 6. It is submitted that in the present case, the show cause notice (Annexure 'P1') was issued on 16.04.2021 by Respondent No. 2 but the order-in-original has been passed on 23.09.2024 i.e. after at least three and half years. 7. It is further submitted that when the judgment of learned Co-ordinate Bench in the case of M/s Kanak Automobiles Private Limited (supra) was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No. 54313/2024 decided on 03.01.2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court refused to interfere with the same, considering the quantum of tax involved in the said case. 8. This Court has been informed that the quantum of tax in the case of M/s Kanak Automobiles Private Limited (supra) was Rs. 86 lakhs/-. Similar ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....il) Diary No. 54313/2024 in the case of M/s Kanak Automobiles Private Limited (supra) was only meant for Department. The Department has fixed monetary limits for filing appeals before GSTAT, High Courts and Supreme Court. The limit has been prescribed by virtue of powers conferred by Section 120 of the Central Goods and Services Tax, 2017 (in short 'CGST Act') read with Section 168 of the CGST Act and the Board has not acted on the recommendations of the GST Council while fixing the monetary limits. For purpose of the Supreme Court, the monetary limit for filing an appeal has been fixed below Rs. Two Crores/-. It is because of this, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the Court was not interfering with the judgment of the High Court....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....supra) hereunder for a ready reference:- "15. This Court is alive to the submission of learned Senior Standing Counsel that the period of limitation of one year as prescribed under clause (b) above is not absolute. In Kanak Automobiles Private Limited case, the learned co-ordinate Bench has agreed to the said submission to the extent that the period of limitation is not absolute period stated in clause (b) of sub-section (4B) of Section 73 of the Act of 1994, but then a question arises as to whether a duty has been cast upon the Department to show that it was not possible to pass an order determining the amount within one year from the date of notice in respect of cases falling under the proviso to sub-section (1) or the proviso to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 2017 (352) E.L.T. 455 (Guj.) in respect of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 wherein the Hon'ble Court has observed as under:- 27. Similarly, the High Court of Gujarat in Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (supra), in respect of Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944, has observed as under: "When the legislature has used the expression "where it is possible to do so", it means that if in the ordinary course it is possible to determine the amount of duty within the specified time frame, it should be so done. The legislature has wisely not prescribed a time limit and has specified such time limit where it is possible to do so, for th....