TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 901
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hirteen) only, including cesses, for the period 2016-17 has been confirmed against the petitioner under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Sections 142(8)(a) and 174 of the CGST Act, 2017. By the said order, interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 has also been directed to be recovered, a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only has been imposed under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 and a further penalty of Rs. 60,52,413/- (Rupees sixty lakhs fifty two thousand four hundred thirteen) only has been imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The petitioner has also put to challenge the Order-In-Appeal No. GAPPL/COM/STP/1371/2023- APPEAL-GUWAHATI/ 1318, dated 29.02.2024, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Guwahati, whereby the appeal against the said Order-in- Original dated 31.03.2023, preferred by the petitioner, has been dismissed. 3. The petitioner No. 1 is a proprietary concern engaged in execution of construction works for various Government departments and agencies, including the Public Works Department, Government of Assam. The petitioner No. 2 is the proprietor of the petitioner No. 1. The petitioner wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the petitioner were exempted from levy of service tax. She submits that the impugned demand has been raised solely on the basis of Form 26AS obtained from the Income Tax Department without any independent determination regarding the nature and taxability of the services rendered by the petitioner. She submits that the alleged Show Cause Notice dated 21.04.2022 was never served upon the petitioner and consequently the impugned Order-in-Original came to be passed ex-parte in violation of the principles of natural justice. She submits that the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 has been invoked without there being any allegation or finding of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of tax. Accordingly, she submits that both the impugned Order-in-Original dated 31.03.2023 and the consequential Order-in-Appeal dated 29.02.2024 are liable to be set aside and quashed. 7. By relying on judgment and order dated 09.01.2026, passed by this Court in the case of Technocom Vs. Union of India & Anr., reported in (2026) 156 GSTR 602 (Gauhati), Ms. Hawelia, learned counsel for the petitio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....matter for invocation of the provisions of Section 73 for extension of the period of limitation, it must necessarily be a case which falls under any or all the conditions specified under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the CGST Act. From a plain reading of the impugned Order-in-Original and the relevant portions of which have been extracted above, it is evident that there is no finding by the Adjudicating Authority that the case of the petitioner can be considered to be a case which falls under the conditions specified in proviso to Section 73(1). Under such circumstances, the impugned Order-in-Original appears to the Court to have been assumption of jurisdiction by the revenue authorities which was not otherwise vested on the said authority. For the revenue authorities to invoke powers under Section 73(1), there must be a finding and a conclusion arrived at based on the facts of the case that the petitioner assessee had willfully and deliberately resorted to fraud, collusion, willful misstatement, suppression of facts of contravention of any of the provision thereunder with the intent to evade payment of service tax. Therefore, for invocation of the powers proviso to Section 73(1)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 73(1) of the GST Act was completely unwarranted and revenue authorities could not have assumed the jurisdiction under section 73(1) unless these pre-conditions mandated and a conclusion thereto has been arrived at by the Revenue authorities before assumption of such jurisdiction. It is under these circumstances that notwithstanding the availability of statutory alternative remedy, this Court considers it an appropriate case to invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226 to interfere with the impugned order in original and to set aside and quash the order-in-original. Under these circumstances, the case laws referred to by the respondents will have no bearing in the facts and circumstances of the present proceedings. There is also no quarrel with the general proposition of law that in the face of statutory alternative remedy being available, a Writ Court would ordinarily not invoke its power of issuance of prerogative Writs. Since this Court has held that the levy of service tax on the petitioner by extending the limitation is contrary to the provisions of law, the natural corollary that would follow is that the levy of all penalty, surcharge and interest are also not leviable on....