Gauhati High Court
M/S. Panorama International vs The Union Of India And 5 Ors on 19 March, 2021
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010022492020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1125/2020
M/S. PANORAMA INTERNATIONAL
A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SHOP NO.
11, 1ST FLOOR, BUILDING OF SHIPRA PURKAYASTHA, AMBIKAPATTY,
SILCHAR- 788004, ASSAM, REP. BY SRI PRASUN CHOUDHURY, THE
PROPRIETOR.
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS.
REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE,
DEPTT. OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI- 110001.
2:THE COMMISSIONER
GST
GST BHAWAN
A.T. ROAD
KEDAR ROAD
MACHKHOWA
GUWAHATI
ASSAM.
3:THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER
CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE DIVISION
SILCHAR
CIRCUIT HOUSE ROAD
SILCHAR - 788001.
4:THE JT. COMMISSIONER
GST BHAWAN
A.T. ROAD
KEDAR ROAD
MACHKHOWA
Page No.# 2/3
GUWAHATI
ASSAM.
5:THE JT. DIRECTOR
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
INTELLIGENCE
GUWAHATI ZONAL UNIT
CHANDMARI
P.O. SILPUKHURI
GUWAHATI- 781003
ASSAM.
6:SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER
DIRECTOR COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GST COMMISSIONERATE
GST BHAWAN
A.T. ROAD
KEDAR ROAD
MACHKHOWA
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. M L GOPE
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
ORDER
Date : 19.03.2021
Heard Ms. N. Hawelia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.C. Keyal,
learned counsel for the respondent GST Department.
Two notices dated 24.09.2019 and 21.10.2019 under the Finance Act 1994 in respect of
payment of service tax is assailed in this writ petition.
Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned counsel for the GST Department raises a preliminary objection
on the maintainability of the writ petition by referring certain judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court as regards the maintainability of a writ petition against the show-cause notices.
Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in CCE v. Krishna Wax
(P) Ltd. reported in 2020 (12) SCC 572 wherein in paragraph 13 it had been provided that a
show-cause notice is only a prima facie view of the department based on which the show-
Page No.# 3/3
cause notice is issued and the determination comes only after a response or representation is
prepared by the person to whom the show-cause notice was addressed and further in
paragraph 14 that the excise law is a complete code in itself and it would normally be not
appropriate for a writ court to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India and the person concerned must first raise all the objections before the authority who had
issued the show-cause notice. Reference is also made to an earlier decision of the Supreme
Court in Union of India v. Guwahati Carbon Limited reported in 2012(11) SCC 651 wherein in
paragraph 15 the maintainability of the writ petition is provided for. Further reference is made
to another pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Coastal Container
Transporters Association reported in AIR 2019 SC (supp.) 1373 wherein in paragraph 19 it was
held that the High Court had committed an error in entertaining the writ under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India at the stage of the show-cause notice.
Ms. N. Hawelia, learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand raises the
contention that the two show-cause notices are barred by limitation.
In the circumstance we are required to decide an issue as to whether the two notices
are barred by limitation and also in violation of the principles of natural justice as alleged so as
to arrive at a conclusion whether the notices were with or without jurisdiction.
Interim order to continue till then.
List on 31.03.2021 as agreed, for further hearing.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
