M/S.Nandighosh Enterprises vs Assistant Commissioner
2025 Latest Caselaw 8635 Ori

Orissa High Court

M/S.Nandighosh Enterprises vs Assistant Commissioner on 23 September, 2025

Author: Murahari Sri Raman

Bench: Murahari Sri Raman

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                              W.P.(C) No.20963 of 2025
              M/s.Nandighosh Enterprises       ....      Petitioner
                                                 Ms.Z.M. Wallace, Advocate
                                         -versus-
              Assistant Commissioner, GST &        ....     Opposite Parties
              Central Excise, Cuttack II Division
              and another
                           Mr. Umesh Chandra Sahoo, Jr. Standing Counsel,
                                                       GST, Central Excise
                                        CORAM:
                         THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                                           AND
               THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
                                         ORDER

Order No. 23.09.2025

01. W.P.(C) No.20963 of 2025 & I.A. No.12531 of 2025

1. Ms. Wallace, 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. She submits, the facts are glaring for her 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.

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) 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. Learned Junior Standing Counsel for the Revenue with reference to the order of the Apex Court dated 2nd May, 2025 passed in SLP (C) No.5392 of 2025 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 along with W.P.(C) No.18713 of 2024 on the date fixed therein. Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner.

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

(M.S. Raman) Judge Aswini

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASWINI KUMAR SETHY Designation: Personal Assistant (Secretary-in-Charge) Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Sep-2025 20:02:54