M/S. Bani Prasad Mohanty vs Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And .... ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 5979 Ori

Orissa High Court

M/S. Bani Prasad Mohanty vs Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And .... ... on 18 June, 2025

Author: Murahari Sri Raman

Bench: Murahari Sri Raman

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                            W.P.(C) No.15407 of 2025
        M/s. Bani Prasad Mohanty                  ....             Petitioner

                                        Mrs. K. Roy Choudhury, Advocate

                                     -versus-

        Central Board of Indirect Taxes and       ....       Opposite Parties
        Customs, New Delhi and Others
                                                        Mr. R.S. Chimanka,
                                                       Sr. Standing Counsel
                              CORAM:
                   HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Order                             ORDER
 No.                             18.06.2025
               W.P.(C) No.15407 of 2025 & I.A. No.8862 of 2025
 01.
        1.

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

2. Mrs. Roy Choudhury, learned 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. She submits, the facts are glaring for him to demonstrate that impossibility to determine within the time cannot be the 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.

3. 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 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 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. Chimanka, learned Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue produces the copy of the order of the Apex Court dated 2.5.2025 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 7.7.2025 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

Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK

Amit/Narayan