Mr. R.G. Chakraborty & Ors. v. Glaxo SmithKline Consumer Health Care Ltd. reported in (2020) 19 SCC 681
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Finance Act, 1994 s. 73(1)
Judgment
Mr. R.G. Chakraborty, Advocate Mr. B. Majumder, Deputy SGI Mr. Paramartha Datta, Advocate HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH Order 24/04/2024 Request for adjournment has been made again by Mr. RG Chakraborty, learned counsel on record on the ground that Ms. M.L. Gope, another counsel on record is out of station in connection with her personal grounds. The matter had been adjourned repeatedly since last six months. Though on the last date none appeared on behalf of the petitioner the case was adjourned as a last indulgence. Since the present learned counsel on record is appearing before us today, we do not deem it fit to adjourn the matter today on the ground as prayed for. We have gone through the pleadings on record. The order in original dated 30.03.2023 passed by the adjudicating officer in a proceeding under the Finance Act, 1994 has been challenged in the instant writ petition inter alia on a number of grounds, such as, show-cause notice dated 21st April, 2022 was illegal and without jurisdiction and has been issued beyond the time period prescribed under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 relating to the financial year 2016-17.
Operative part
The petitioner has also taken a plea that the extended period of limitation for issuance of show-cause notice is not available to the respondents. The petitioner has also sought to rely upon the exemption notification No. 25 of 2012, dated 20.06.2012 whereunder petitioner claims to be exempted from payment of service tax for execution of such contract. The petitioner has also taken a plea that the proceedings are hit by Section 174 of the CGST Act, as the Finance Act 1994 has been repealed. However, upon consideration of the aforesaid grounds, it is clear that the writ petition has been preferred after expiry of the period of limitation for preferring an appeal under Section 107 (1) read with Section 107(4) of the CGST Act i.e. on 05.08.2023. As such, following the ratio laid down in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada & ors. vs. Glaxo SmithKline Consumer Health Care Ltd. reported in (2020) 19 SCC 681, the writ petition should not be entertained, since the period of preferring statutory appeal has already expired at the time of filing of the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Let it be made clear that we have not given any findings on the merits of other grounds of the writ petition. (ARINDAM LODH),J (APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ SAIKAT KAR Digitally signed by SAIKAT KAR +05'30'
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Finance Act, 1994 — s. 73(1).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.