Siva Sekhar Sahoo vs Commissioner (Appeals)
2025 Latest Caselaw 1467 Ori

Orissa High Court

Siva Sekhar Sahoo vs Commissioner (Appeals) on 4 June, 2025

Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, Murahari Sri Raman

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                 W.P.(C) No.14924 of 2025
            Siva Sekhar Sahoo                          ......        Petitioner

                                                      Mr. R.P. Kar, Sr.Advocate

                                         -versus-

            Commissioner (Appeals), GST & Central        ....        Opp.Parties
            Excise & Customs, BBSR & others

                                         Mr. R.S.Chimanka, Sr.Standing Counsel

                                     CORAM:
             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
               THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
                                      ORDER

04.06.2025 Order No. W.P.(C) No.14924 of 2025 & I.A. No.8710 of 2025

01.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Mr. Kar, learned Senior Advocate 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 paragraph10

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 a 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. Chimanka, learned Senior Standing Counsel appears on behalf of revenue. We require revenue to issue instruction for being heard on adjourned date. Mr. Chimanka prays for two weeks.

5. List on 7th July, 2025 and tag this matter to W.P.(C) No.18713 of 2024. Impugned orders dated 7th July, 2023 and 25th September, 2024will remain stayed till next date

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Vacation Judge

(M.S.RAMAN) Vacation Judge Manoj