The extended period of limitation under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act cannot be invoked without clear evidence of fraud or suppression of facts; mere omissions do not justify such actions.

ORDER :

S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J.

In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

i) Issue a writ of certiorari, or any other such writ order or direction, as it may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, quashing the show-cause notice No.13/2021-22 dated 22.04.2021 in GEXCOM/ ADJN/ ST/ COM/ 283/2021-ADJN within DIN 20210457YT000000 2E9D (Annexure-A), is wholly arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice, in excess of jurisdiction and even otherwise, in abuse of jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14 of the Constitution of India;

ii) To pass such other orders, directions and writs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interests of justice, including the costs of this writ petition.

2. Heard Shrii.Rajesh Chander Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri.Jeevan J.Neeralgi, learned counsel apeparing for the respondent and perused the material on record.

3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the impugned show- cause notice at Annexure-A dated 22.04.2021 in order to point out that the necessary ingredients of Section 73 (1) of the Finance Act, 1994 has not been complied with and conspicuously absent/missing from the impugned show- cause notice. In this context, it is pointed out that without any basis, the respondent seek to justify invocation of the extended period of limitation and in the absence of any supporting material in this regard, the impugned show- cause notice is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction or authority of law and contrary to Section 73 (1) of the Finance Act and the same deserves to be quashed.

4. He would place reliance upon various judgments including the judgment of the Apex Court in ITW SIGNODE INDIA LIMITED Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE - 2003 (158) E.L.T. 403 (S.C.) and STEMCYTE INDIA THERAPEUTICS PRIVATE LIMITED - (2025) 32 CENTAX 226 (S.C.) as well as judgment of this Court in the case of M/S NCS PEARSON INC. MINNESOTA BASED CORPORATION, USA Vs. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS in Writ Petition No.7635 of 2024 (T-Res) disposed of on 16.07.2025 under identical circumstances in relation to Section 74 of the CGST Act by pointing out that the language employed in of the CGST Act is akin and similar to the language employed in Section 73 (1) of the Finance Act and consequently, the impugned show-cause notice deserves to be quashed.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submit that there is no merit in the petition. He would reiterate the various contentions urged in the statement of objections and submit that the petitioner did not file returns and did not declare taxable value and there was short payment of service tax. He submitted that due to the petitioner's conduct, the investigation was dragged on and as such, the respondent was left with no option but to complete the investigation and issue the show-cause notice, which does not warrant interference by this Court in the present petition.

6. By way of reply, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submit that the petitioner has been co-operating with the investigation and had issued a communication dated 05.09.2019 along with all relevant documents and as such, the delay in issuance of show-cause notice is not attributable to the petitioner and the same was reiterated in the e-mail at Annexure-'O' dated 20.04.2021 and the respondent not being diligent is not entitled to the benefit of the extended period of limitation and present petition deserves to be allowed.

7. The learned counsel for the respondents would reite