Jharkhand High Court
Manoj Kumar Mewara vs Principal Commissioner on 17 April, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2025:JHHC:11583-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(T) No. 3538 of 2024
--------
Manoj Kumar Mewara, Aged about 56 Years, Son of Late Nagarmull
Mewara, Resident of Flat No 2601 Sri Ram Chandra Gardens, P.O.
Gonda P.S. Gonda District Ranchi. ... ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. Principal Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax and Central
Excise, having his Office at Central Revenue Building, 5-A, Mahatma
Gandhi Road, P.O. Donranda, P.S. Chutia, District Ranchi-834 001.
2. Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax and Central
Excise, Ranchi North Division, 6th Floor Mahavir Tower, P.O. G.P.O,
P.S. Hindpiri, District Ranchi-834 001. ... ... Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikas Pandey, Advocate
For the Respondent-CGST : Mr. P. A. S. Pati, Advocate
Mr. Anurag Vijay, Advocate
--------
JUDGMENT
CAV On 20/03/2025 Pronounced On 17/04/2025
Per Deepak Roshan, J.
The instant writ application has been preferred by the
petitioner for the following reliefs:
"a) For a direction on Respondent No-2 to serve copy of the Order in Original
No 360/DC/0I0/R&D/2022-23 dated 19.05.2022 alongwith the connected
Show Cause Notice dated 18.12.2020, as the petitioner has neither been
served with any Show Cause Notice in terms of Section 73 of the Finance
Act, 1994 nor said Order In Original Number No 360/DC/0I0/R&D/2022-23
dated 19.05.2022, which has deprived the Petitioner to avail the statutory
remedies of Appeal as available under the provisions of the said Act.
b) For any other appropriate direction deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court."
2. The fact of the case lies in a narrow compass. The
petitioner is the erstwhile partner of a partnership Firm, namely, Maruti
Minerals which stood dissolved by virtue of deed of dissolution dated
31.03.2018 with effect from 31.03.2018. The Firm before its
2025:JHHC:11583-DB
dissolution was engaged in the business of transporting and mineral
trading. After the deed of dissolution dated 31.03.2018, an intimation
letter was also given to the Income Tax Officer Ward No.2 (1), Ranchi
vide letter dated 15.09.2021.
3. The grievance of the Petitioner is that all of a sudden, he
was served with recovery notice dated 18.07.2023. On perusal of the
said notice, it came to the knowledge of the Petitioner that Order in
Original with respect to one case was passed on 19.05.2022 itself
against the Partnership Firm. On enquiry, from the respondent-
Department the Petitioner came to know about passing of the said
Order in Original in connection with a show-cause notice dated
18.12.2020 and pursuant thereto; he made several requests to the
Respondent-department to furnish the Order in Original.
The specific case of the petitioner is that he has been
served with the show-cause notice so that he could have replied to the
same and the Order in Original has been passed behind his back;
even the same has not been served to him. As such, the same may be
quashed.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed in this case wherein it
has been specifically stated at para 9 that the show cause- cum-
demand notice dated 08.12.2020 was sent on the postal address of
the Petitioner which was available on record by Speed Post on the
very same address on which Petitioner has received instant letter. The
Respondents have also annexed the photo copy of the relevant page
2025:JHHC:11583-DB
of dispatch register as well as copy of BNPL Booking Journal as token
of proof.
However, no receipt of either show-cause notice or Order
in Original could be brought for record.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after
going through the documents available on record specially the
dispatch register (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit) and Speed Post
chart (Annexure-B to the counter affidavit), it transpires that the same
has been dispatched but no documents, whatsoever, has been
brought on record to prove the service of notice to the petitioner.
At this stage, it is pertinent to mention here that in any
transaction through Speed Post, the receipt is generated after service
of document. As such, it cannot be said that mere dispatch of the
document is suffice to prove the service of notice. Thus, we are of the
considered view that the show-cause notice itself was not served to
the Petitioner and that is the reason, he could not appear before the
authority to defend his case.
6. In this peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we
are of the considered opinion that interest of justice would be sufficed
by remitting the case back to the Respondent no.2 who has issued the
show-cause notice to decide the case afresh after following principle
of natural justice.
7. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands allowed
and the purported show-cause notice dated 18.12.2020 and the Order
2025:JHHC:11583-DB
in Original No. 360/DC/0I0/R&D/2022-23 dated 19.05.2022, are
hereby, quashed and set-aside. The 2nd Respondent is directed to
issue fresh show-cause notice and proceed in the matter strictly in
accordance with law and following of principle of natural justice.
8. Pending I.A, if any, also stands disposed of.
(M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Amit
A.F.R
