Anand Kumar Dubey vs Assistant Commissioner .... Opposite ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 5221 Ori

Orissa High Court

Anand Kumar Dubey vs Assistant Commissioner .... Opposite ... on 21 March, 2025

Bench: Arindam Sinha, M.S. Sahoo

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                  WP(C) No.7944 of 2025
            Anand Kumar Dubey           ....                              Petitioner
                                                              Represented by Adv.-
                                                          Mr. A. Agarwal, Advocate
                                             -versus-
            Assistant Commissioner      ....                         Opposite Parties
            GST and Central Excise,                           Represented by Adv.-
            Rourkela II and others
                                                            Mr. A. Kedia, Advocate
                                                             (Jr. Standing Counsel)

                                             CORAM:
                     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA,
                           THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
                                      AND
                       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO
                                              ORDER

21.03.2025 WP(C) no.7944 of 2025 and I.A. no.4078 of 2025 Order No.

01. 1. Mr. Agarwal, 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. He

submits, the facts are glaring for him to demonstrate that impossibility to

determine within the time cannot be 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. 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."

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 three weeks.

4. List on 7th April, 2025. Impugned order dated 28th May, 2024 will

remain stayed till next date of hearing.

( Arindam Sinha ) Acting Chief Justice

Signed by: JYOTIPRAVA BHOL ( M.S. Sahoo ) Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Judge Date: 21-Mar-2025 15:55:55 Jyoti