M/S. Md. Anwar vs Additional Commissioner Of Central ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 5946 Ori

Orissa High Court

M/S. Md. Anwar vs Additional Commissioner Of Central ... on 17 June, 2025

Author: Murahari Sri Raman

Bench: Murahari Sri Raman

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                W.P.(C) No.13162 of 2025


            M/s. Md. Anwar                             ....              Petitioner
                                                           Represented by Adv.-
                                                     Mr. M.L. Agarwal, Advocate
                                          -Versus-

            Additional Commissioner of Central         ....       Opposite Parties
            Tax, GST and Central Excise,
            Rourkela Commissionerate and
            others
                                                          Represented by Adv.-
                                          Mr. A. Kedia, Junior Standing Counsel



                                  CORAM:
                        HON' BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                                    AND
                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

                                           ORDER

Order No. 17.06.2025 W.P.(C) No.13162 of 2025 and I.A. No.7705 of 2025

01. 1. Mr. M.L. Agarwal, 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.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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) in 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. A. Kedia, learned Junior Standing Counsel for the

Revenue produces the copy of the order of the Apex Court dated 2nd

May, 2025 passed in SLP (C) No.5392 of 2025 and 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.

4. List this matter on 7th July, 2025 and tag this matter to

W.P.(C) No.18713 of 2024. Till then, no coercive action shall be

taken against the petitioner.

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

(M.S. Raman) Judge S.K. Guin/PA

Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 18-Jun-2025 16:33:29