Case Law Details
M. L. Dalmiya & Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Additional Commissioner CGST & CX (Calcutta High Court)
Introduction: In a recent legal development, M.L. Dalmiya & Co. Ltd. and another petitioner have taken the matter to the Calcutta High Court to challenge show-cause notices issued by the CGST (Central Goods and Services Tax) authority. These notices, dated 19th April, 2021, and 2nd August, 2022, are issued under Section 78(1) read with Section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioners argue that these notices lack jurisdiction and are barred by limitation. This article delves into the details of the case, including the grounds of challenge, legal provisions, and the court’s response.
1. Challenging the Show-Cause Notices: Provide an overview of the show-cause notices issued by the CGST authority to M.L. Dalmiya & Co. Ltd. and the reasons for challenging them. Explain the basis for the challenge, including jurisdiction and limitation issues.
2. Jurisdictional Conflict: Analyze the jurisdictional conflict between the petitioner and the CGST authority. Explain the legal provisions, such as Section 78(1) and Section 174 of the CGST Act, invoked by both parties.
3. Commencement of CGST Act: Discuss the timeline of the impugned order and the initiation of proceedings. Highlight that the order pertains to the period when service tax was in force and how the CGST Act came into play afterward.
4. Interpretation of Section 174(2)(a) and (e): Provide an in-depth analysis of Section 174(2)(a) and (e) of the CGST Act, 2017. Explain how both parties rely on different subsections to support their respective arguments.
5. Alternative Remedies and Court’s Jurisdiction: Discuss the availability of alternative remedies, such as an appeal, and why the Calcutta High Court decided to entertain this writ petition despite the existence of other options. Highlight the significance of the jurisdiction issue and the need for interpretation of relevant sections.
6. Court’s Directions and Future Proceedings: Summarize the court’s directions, including the timeline for filing affidavits and responses. Explain the court’s decision to allow the continuation of the impugned proceedings while withholding their effect without the court’s leave.
7. Final Hearing in December 2023: Provide information about the upcoming final hearing scheduled for December 2023. Discuss the importance of this hearing in resolving the jurisdiction and limitation issues raised by the petitioners.
Conclusion: The case of M.L. Dalmiya & Co. Ltd. challenging CGST show-cause notices reflects the complexities of tax law and jurisdictional conflicts. The interpretation of Section 174(2)(a) and (e) of the CGST Act, 2017, is crucial in determining the validity of these notices. The Calcutta High Court’s decision to hear this matter underscores the significance of resolving jurisdictional and legal interpretation issues, which could have broader implications for similar cases in the future. The final hearing in December 2023 will be a pivotal moment in this legal battle.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties.
By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned show-cause notices dated 19th April, 2021 and 2nd August, 2022 issued by the CGST authority concerned on the basis of Section 78(1) read with Section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017, on the ground that the same is without jurisdiction and is barred by limitation.
Petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed pertaining to the period 2015-2016 to 2017-2018 (June 2017) during which service tax was in force and the impugned proceeding has been initiated after the commencement of CGST Act. Petitioner relies on Section 174(2)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017.
Learned advocate appearing for the respondent CGST authority concerned in opposing the writ petition justifies the impugned show cause notice by relying on Section 174(2)(e) of the CGST Act.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in spite of availability of alternative remedy by way of an appeal, this Court is inclined to entertain this writ petition since the question of jurisdiction of the authority who has passed the impugned order is involved as well as interpretation of the aforesaid Sections, are involved.
Let the respondents file affidavit in opposition within four weeks; petitioner to file reply thereto, if any within two weeks thereafter.
In the meantime, the impugned proceeding may be continued and final order may be passed, but it shall not be giving effect to without the leave of this Court.
List this matter for final hearing in the monthly list of December, 2023.
