IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Aparesh Kumar Singh, Deepak Roshan, JJ.
M/s Kota Dall Mill - Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner, CGST & CX, Division-II and ors. – Respondents
W.P.(T) No. 2466 of 2021
Decided On : 06-05-2022
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Central Excise Act, 1944 - Section 5A(1) , 35 B - Power of High court to issue certain writs - Appeals to Appellate Tribunal - Held, Coming to the facts of the case as stated hereinabove there appears to be no violation of principles of natural justice. Moreover, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the Order-in-Original for which there is a statutory remedy prescribed by the statute. It is also not the case of the petitioner that the Order-in-Original is passed without jurisdiction - In other words none of the exceptions as carved by the Hon’ble Apex Court for maintainability of the writ application, bypassing the alternative remedy, has been met out in the instant application - As such we are not going into merits of this case and the instant writ application is dismissed on the ground of maintainability itself with a liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal under Section 35 B of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Writ application dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Deepak Roshan, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for following reliefs:-
(ii) For issuance of an appropriate Writ(s), Order(s), and/or direction(s) declaring that no excise duty is payable on the Food Items manufactured by the petitioner as all the pre-requisite stipulated under Notification No. 12/2012-Central Excise dated 17.03.2012 (Annexure-1) stands fulfilled and accordingly, permanently restrain the Respondent-department from giving effect, in any manner, to Impugned Order-in-Original dated 12.04.2021 (Annexure-6/1). OR
(iii) For issuance of an appropriate Writ(s), Order(s), and/or direction(s) declaring that the very assumption of jurisdiction by the Respondent No.3 to issue Impugned SCN dated 24.07.2019 (Annexure-3) and act of Respondent No.2 of continuing proceedings thereto and passing of Impugned Order dated 12.04.2021 (Annexure-6/1) is bad in law, arbitrary and void-ab- initio and hence, the entire proceedings are a nullity and accordingly quash the Impugned Order dated 12.04.2021 (Annexure-6/1); (iv) For issuance of an appropriate Writ (s), Order (s), and/or direction(s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case in the interest of justice;
(v) For quashing and setting aside the purported letter contained in F.No.V (30) 04/Misc./Tech/BOK-II/2020-21/523 dated 22.06.2021 (Annexure-12) issued by the Deputy Commissioner, CGST & C. EX, Division-II, Bokaro, which was signed by the Deputy Commissioner on 22.06.2021, seal of the Department was made on 30.07.2021 and served upon the representative of the petitioner on 03.08.2021 at 3.00 PM, inter alia, denying the request of the petitioner for extension of time for submission of certificates of exemption made vide letter dated 07.06.2021 (Annexure-7 of the writ petition) as the said letter dated 22.06.2021 has been issued in complete violation of the Circular No. 128/47/2019-GST dated 23.12.2019 (Annexure 13) issued by the Commissioner (GST-Inv.), CBIC, Ministry of Finance, which provides for quoting of Document Identification Number (DIN) in every communication issued by the officers of the Department.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner entered into an agreement with the Department of Social Welfare, Women & Child Development, State of Jharkhand, Ranchi for supply of Supplementary Nutrition Food namely Fortified Nutro Upma and Fortified Panjiri (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Food Items’) under the Integrated Child Development Services Scheme. The condition under the said agreement was that the successful bidder shall be under obligation to install manufacturing plant in the State of Jharkhand, within a period of 6 months from the date of execution of the Agreement. Hence, as per the terms & conditions of the agreement, the petitioner manufactured and supplied the Food Items in the State of Jharkhand from its manufacturing unit in Kota, Rajasthan. Thereafter, a plant was erected at Bokaro, which came into existence on 20.12.2014. Therefore, the supplies from the said plant were commenced from January, 2015 onwards.
The Food Items manufactured by the petitioner were exempted from excise duty vide Notification No. 12/2012-Central Excise dated 17.03.2012, issued in exercise of powers conferred by Section 5A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) by the Government of India. As per the said Notification, food preparations put up in unit containers and intended for free distribution to economically weaker sections of society
Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi Versus Hari Chand Shri Gopal and Others
Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others
Point of Law :Under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 37C of the Act, in case of service of notice by speed post, the same has to be with proof of delivery.
Writ petitions against quasi-judicial authorities are not maintainable if statutory remedies are available unless exceptional circumstances like natural justice violations are proven.
The validity of an order is not always null and void solely on the ground of non-adherence to the Principles of Natural Justice, and the breach of the audi alteram partem rule does not ipso-facto lea....
It is over enthusiasm of the officer to advance the departmental cause that without grasping the ratio on the subject and disregard to the settled principles of law that he has initiated the action a....
Point of Law : Doctrine of substantial compliance is a judicial invention, equitable in nature, designed to avoid hardship in cases where a party does all that can reasonably be expected of it, but f....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to adhere to the principles of natural justice, including the grant of adequate opportunities for hearing and cross-examination ....
The court emphasized that while an alternative remedy is available, the High Court has the discretion to entertain a writ petition. The court also highlighted that the availability of an alternative ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.