Case Law Details
Rathi Bars Limited Vs Additional Commissioner CGST And Central Excise Commissionerate & Ors. (Rajasthan High Court)
The Rajasthan High Court considered a writ petition challenging orders dated 01.02.2025 and 04.02.2025. The petitioner raised an issue regarding the issuance of a single notice covering multiple years, contending that such a course was impermissible. It was also pointed out that different High Courts, including the High Courts of Delhi and Andhra Pradesh, have taken differing views on the issue of a single notice being issued for multiple years.
The petitioner further contended that despite making a request, the respondents did not provide an opportunity to cross-examine material witnesses. It was argued that the absence of such an opportunity vitiated the impugned orders in law. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on an order passed by the Rajasthan High Court in M/s Nandini Sales Corporation vs. Union of India dated 17.10.2024.
The Court issued notice to the respondents. Counsel appearing for the respondents accepted notice and was directed to file a reply to the writ petition. The matter was directed to be listed after four weeks along with D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9782/2024.
As an interim measure, the Court ordered that the effect and operation of the orders dated 01.02.2025 and 04.02.2025 shall remain stayed until further orders.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
1. It has been pointed out that two different High Courts (may be the High Court of Delhi and High Court of Andhra Pradesh), have taken two different views with respect to an issue of single notice being issued for multiple years.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised an issue with regard to one notice having been issued for multiple years, which in his submission could not have been done.
3. Learned counsel has also further submitted that in spite of the request made, the respondent(s) did not provide an opportunity to cross-examine the material witnesses and on that count, the order impugned is vitiated in law. He relies on an order passed by this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9782/2024 (M/s Nandini Sales Corporation vs. Union of India), dated 17.10.2024.
4. Issue notice to respondents.
5. Mr. Chandra Shekhar Sinha, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent(s), who shall file reply to the writ petition.
6. List this case after four weeks along with D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9782/2024.
7. Meanwhile and till further orders, the effect and operation of the orders dated 01.02.2025 and 04.02.2025, shall remain stayed.
Author Bio
