Hazi Mohammad Sakil vs Commissioner (Appeal)
2025 Latest Caselaw 3230 Ori

Orissa High Court

Hazi Mohammad Sakil vs Commissioner (Appeal) on 7 August, 2025

Author: Murahari Sri Raman

Bench: Murahari Sri Raman

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                              W.P.(C) No.18197 of 2025
                 Hazi Mohammad Sakil                    ....          Petitioner
                                                Mr. P. Harichandan, Advocate
                                           -versus-
                 Commissioner (Appeal), GST,         ....      Opposite Parties
                 Central Excise & Customs,
                 Bhubaneswar and others
                                          Mr. Avinash Kedia, Junior Standing
                                                                     Counsel
                                         CORAM:
                           THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                                             AND
                 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
                                           ORDER

Order No. 07.08.2025

01. W.P.(C) No.18197 of 2025 & I.A. No.8778 of 2025

This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2. Mr. P. Harichandan, learned counsel appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, assuming though not admitting that there could be allegation of suppression by his client, the determination of amount of service tax due was not made anywhere near within one year from date of the notice. He submits, the facts are glaring for him to demonstrate that impossibility to determine within the time cannot be the case of revenue. He relies on use of word 'shall' in sub-section (4B) under section 73 in Finance Act, 1994 to make his point.

3. He relies on judgment dated 4th April, 2024 of a Division Bench in the High Court of Patna (Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case no.18398 of 2023) M/s. Kanak Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and

others (tiol print). We reproduce below paragraph-10 from the judgment.

"10. Here, we agree that it is not an absolute mandate that the proceedings should be completed within one year from the notice; but it requires the statutory authority to take all possible steps, so to do and conclude the proceedings within an year. No steps were taken in the entire one year period, which results in the frustration of the goal of expediency as required statutorily. We hence find that the proceedings cannot be continued."

4. Mr. Kedia, learned Junior Standing Counsel for the Revenue with reference to the order of the Apex Court dated 02.05.2025 passed in SLP (C) No.5392 of 2025, copy of which has been produced in similar matters, submits that in view of the observation of the Apex Court at paragraph-9 of the said order, the hearing of this case may be deferred.

5. List this matter on 9th September, 2025 and tag this matter to W.P.(C) No.18713 of 2024. Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

(M.S. Raman) Judge MRS/Laxmikant

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANORANJAN SAMAL Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 08-Aug-2025 18:45:19