Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, SANDEEP TANEJA
Daulat And Co. – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India, Through Finance Secretary, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. limitation for issue of show cause notice. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. legal arguments regarding section 11a. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. nature and role of the excise authority. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. fraud negates limitation periods. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 6. disposal of all pending applications. (Para 17) |
ORDER :
1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the show cause notice dated 20.06.2025, issued under Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short ‘the Act’), alleging that the issue notice is beyond limitation.
2. It is further alleged that the notice itself could not have been issued under the Excise Act to the petitioners, who were not the manufacturers, but are the proprietors concerned for engaging trading business and have received goods from another manufacturers.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has relied on Provisions of Section 11A of the Act to submit that any notice issued after a period of five years from the relevant date, would have no force and the same deserves to be quashed on the same that count alone.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the judgment passe
Fraud vitiates limitations under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, allowing notices despite elapsed time where fraud or suppression of facts is established.
Show cause notices issued under the Central Excise Act, 1944, are invalid if based on non-statutory norms and issued beyond the limitation period prescribed by Section 11A(11).
The court established that suppression of facts for extending limitation requires deliberate intent to evade duty, not mere failure to act.
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.
In cases of revenue disputes, undue delay in adjudication of show cause notices violates fundamental rights and regulatory statutes, rendering them invalid.
A mere non-payment of service tax does not justify invoking the extended limitation period unless there is evidence of deliberate intent to misstate or suppress facts.
Extended limitation period for tax demands requires evidence of deliberate suppression or intent to evade tax; mere non-payment is insufficient.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
