Case: M/s Ishan Construction v. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Raipur
Court: High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur
Petition: WPT No. 35 of 2023
Date of Judgment: 02.02.2023
Category of Dispute: Violation of principles of natural justice (appeal and show cause notice)
Relevant Sections: Section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of CGST Act, 2017; Section 107 of CGST Act, 2017
Facts (Paras 2–6)
Proceedings were initiated under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017, culminating in an order dated 27.01.2022. The petitioner claimed no show-cause notice was ever served in that proceeding. Later, another show-cause notice dated 17.10.2018 was contested by the petitioner on merits, but this subsequent proceeding was closed on 22.02.2022 since an order already existed on the same facts. The petitioner alleged denial of opportunity and repeatedly represented before authorities. Finally, an appeal was filed on 18.01.2023, along with a fresh application dated 24.01.2023 requesting the Appellate Authority to first decide whether any show-cause notice had ever been served.
Questions before the Court (Paras 1 & 6)
Whether the Appellate Authority must first decide the petitioner’s application on non-service of show cause notice (Annexure P/9) before considering the appeal on merits.
Observations (Paras 7–9)
The Court noted that the primary contention in appeal itself was the denial of natural justice due to absence of show-cause notice. Since this was the substantive ground raised in appeal, the Appellate Authority would naturally consider it first. The Court clarified that it was unnecessary to direct a separate decision on the application dated 24.01.2023. It further observed that the Appellate Authority may examine whether delay in filing appeal under Section 107 can be condoned, depending on justifiable reasons.
Judgment (Paras 8–10)
The writ petition was disposed of. The Court held that the Appellate Authority shall consider, as a first step, the petitioner’s contention of denial of opportunity in absence of notice, and also decide on condonation of delay in filing appeal, before proceeding further.
Table of cases referred
The judgment did not refer to other precedents.
Between Fine Lines
For trade and industry, this judgment underscores that if an assessee alleges non-service of show-cause notice, the issue becomes the core ground in appeal. The appellate authority is obliged to first determine this jurisdictional aspect before delving into merits or limitation. Businesses must preserve proof of service (or lack thereof) since it can become decisive in sustaining or quashing adjudication orders.
Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”
