TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 272
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....GST. 2. By way of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner calls in question, inter alia, the legality and validity of the adjudicating order dated 24.04.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, Guwahati Division-II. 3. The foundational facts, shorn of unnecessary details, are that the petitioner, a proprietorship concern engaged in execution of works contract, asserts that the services rendered by it stood exempted under the Mega Exemption Notification issued under the Finance Act, 1994. Notwithstanding such exemption, a Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice dated 11.04.2022 came to be issued for the financial year 2016-2017 under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, and therefore ought to be relegated to the appellate forum. Reliance is placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in M/s Power Line Air Express Vs. Principal Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax & Ors., Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 11496/2026 and the decision of the Delhi High Court in M/s Power Line Air Express Vs. Principal Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax & Ors., WP(C) 3328/2026. 6. The rival submissions fall for consideration in a narrow compass. The existence of an alternative remedy is not in dispute. Equally well settled, however, is the principle that such rule is one of self-imposed restraint and not an in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the person to whom such tax refund has erroneously been made, requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice : Provided that where any service tax has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded by reason of - (a) fraud; or (b) collusion; or (c) wilful mis-statement; or (d) suppression of facts; or (e) contravention of any of the provisions of this Chapter or of the rules made there under with intent to evade payment of service tax, by the person chargeable with the service tax or his agent, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect, as if, for the words 1"eighteen months", the words "five year....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....here has been under assessment in any year he has jurisdiction to start proceedings under S 34 by issuing a notice provided 8 years have not elapsed from the end of the year in question, but whether the notices should have been issued within a period of 4 years or not is only a question of limitation which could and should properly be raised in the assessment proceedings It is wholly incorrect however to suppose that this is a question of limitation only not touching the question of jurisdiction. The scheme of the law clearly is that where the Income-tax Officer has reason to believe that an under assessment has resulted from non-disclosure he shall have jurisdiction to start proceedings for re-assessment within a period of 8 years....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 28. Mr. Sastri mentioned more than once the fact that the company would have sufficient opportunity to raise this question, viz whether the Income-tax Officer had reason to believe that under assessment had resulted from non-disclosure of material facts, before the Income-tax Officer himself in the assessment proceedings and if unsuccessful there before the appellate officer or the appellate tribunal or in the High Court under S 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act The existence of such alternative remedy is not however always a sufficient reason for refusing a party quick relief by a writ or order prohibiting an authority acting without jurisdiction from continuing such action. 29. In the present case the company contends th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s to what would be the reasonable period for exercising the revisional jurisdiction in terms of Section 21(1) of the Act. The High Court, furthermore in its judgment, has referred to some binding precedents which have been operating in the field. The High Court, therefore, cannot be said to have committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment." 17. In the case at hand, the Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice dated 11.04.2022 pertains to the financial year 2016-2017. Even assuming the applicability of the extended period, the notice has been issued beyond the statutorily permissible period. 18. The inevitable consequence thereof is that the very initiation of proceedings is vitiated in law. The Adjudicating Authority, lack....