(Through Hybrid Mode) vs Assistant Commissioner
2025 Latest Caselaw 2101 Ori

Orissa High Court

(Through Hybrid Mode) vs Assistant Commissioner on 6 January, 2025

Bench: Arindam Sinha, M.S. Sahoo

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                W.P.(C) No.31455 of 2024
                                 (Through hybrid mode)
            M/s. Aryan Enterprises, Cuttack           ....                 Petitioner

                                                       Represented By Adv. -
                                                      Mrs. Z.M. Wallace, Advocate

                                           -versus-

            Assistant Commissioner, GST &             ....            Opp. Parties
            Central Excise, Cuttack-II
            Division and another

                                                           Represented By Adv.
                                              Mr. A. Kedia, Jr. Standing Counsel




                                 CORAM:
                   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
                                           AND
                     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO

                                        ORDER

06.01.2025

W.P. (C) no.31455 of 2024 and I.A. no.16735 of 2024 Order No.

01. 1. Mrs. Wallace, learned advocate virtually appears on behalf of

petitioner and submits, assuming though not admitting that there could

be allegation of suppression by her client, the determination of amount

of service tax due was not made anywhere near within one year from

// 2 //

date of the notice. She submits, the facts are glaring for her to

demonstrate that impossibility to determine within the time cannot be

case of revenue. She relies on use of word 'shall' in sub-section (4B)

under section 73 in Finance Act, 1994 to make his point.

2. She 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."

3. Mr. Kedia, learned advocate, Junior Standing Counsel appears

on behalf of revenue. We require revenue to issue instruction for being

heard on adjourned date. Mr. Kedia prays for two weeks.

// 3 //

4. List on 22nd January, 2025. Impugned order dated 30th August,

2024 will remain stayed till next date of hearing.

(Arindam Sinha) Judge

(M.S. Sahoo) Judge Sks