Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 517 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 20 January, 2022
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14068/2021
Konasth Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 602, 6Th Floor, Apex Tower, Lal
Kothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302015 Through Its
Authorised Signatory Shri Hari Singh Chaudhary S/o Shri Gaja
Nand Choudhary.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through Principal Commissioner, Central
Goods And Services Tax, New Central Revenue Building,
Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302001.
2. Joint Commissioner, Anti Evasion, Central Goods And
Services Tax And Central Excise Commissionerate, Ncr
Building, Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan-
302005.
3. Deputy Commissioner, Anti Evasion, Central Goods And
Services Tax And Central Excise Commissionerate, Ncr
Building, Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan-
302005.
4. Superintendent, Anti Evasion, Central Goods And Services
Tax And Central Excise, Commissionerate, Ncr Building,
Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302005.
5. Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation Of India Ltd., 5Th
Floor, Pragati Maidan, Metro Station Building Complex,
New Delhi- 110001.
6. Larsen And Toubro Ltd., Western Dedicated Freight
Corridor, Civil Track Package- 1 And 2, 4Th Floor, Sdc
Monarch, Plot No. D-236, Amrapali Marg, Jaipur- 303021
(Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kinshuk Jain through VC
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment
(2 of 3) [CW-14068/2021]
20/01/2022
The petitioner has challenged the show cause notice dated
22.10.2021 why service tax to the tune of Rs.1.24 crores
(rounded off) should not be recovered with interest and penalty.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the show cause
notice suffers from lack of jurisdiction inter-alia on the grounds
that:-
(i) The petitioner was a service provider and had provided service
as a subcontractor to the railways. Service tax on such services
is exempt.
(ii) The Commissioner has invoked the extended period of
limitation though there was no concealment or mis-disclosure on
the part of the petitioner. He submitted that the entire period
under show cause notice is beyond the normal period of limitation.
The petitioner having filed regular returns in which all details of
the work done, services rendered and charges recovered having
been declared, the Commissioner could not have invoked the
extended period of limitation.
(iii) The authorities have also not followed the procedure of pre-
consultation on a false premise that the case arose on account of
investigations by the preventive wing of the department.
We are conscious that ordinarily this Court does not interfere
at the stage of show cause notice. Usually the Court would
relegate the noticee before the authority. However when the
question of jurisdiction of the authority issuing such notice and to
continue the proceedings arising out of such notice arises, the
Court has ample power to invoke writ jurisdiction even at the
show cause notice stage.
(3 of 3) [CW-14068/2021]
Prima facie the issues raised by the petitioner require further
consideration. Looking to the prima facie case particularly of the
wrong invokation of extended period of limitation, let there be
notice, returnable on 04.03.2022.
By way of ad-interim relief impugned show cause notice is
stayed.
(SAMEER JAIN),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ
KAMLESH KUMAR /8
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!