Case Summary
Case Title: Chandra Sekhar Singh v. Union of India & Ors.
Court: Calcutta High Court
Petition No.: WPA 228 of 2024
Category of Dispute: Service Tax Demand / Alternative Remedy under GST Transition
Date of Judgment: 03.07.2025
Relevant Sections: Section 73 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994; Section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017; Rule 6 of Service Tax Rules, 1994
Facts (Para 1–2, 5–6)
The petitioner challenged an ex parte adjudication order dated 21.01.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Shibpur Division, Howrah, which demanded service tax of ₹3,85,041 plus interest and equal penalty under Section 73 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that no effective hearing was granted and prayed that the order be treated as a show cause notice with liberty to contest afresh.
Questions Before the Court
-
Whether the ex parte adjudication order could be quashed and treated as a show cause notice?
-
Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the existence of the statutory appellate remedy?
Observations (Para 3–4)
The Court noted that the petitioner was repeatedly issued hearing notices on 09.12.2021, 23.12.2021, and 19.01.2022, but failed to appear. The adjudicating authority was therefore justified in passing the ex parte order. The Court emphasized that:
-
The order is an appealable order and an efficacious alternative remedy exists.
-
The writ petition was filed only in 2024, after two years of inaction.
-
The Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) v. Glaxo SmithKline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. (2020) held that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised once the appeal limitation expires.
Judgment (Para 4–5)
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that no interference was warranted as the petitioner had a statutory appellate remedy. However, it granted liberty to file an appeal before the appropriate authority, and directed that the pendency of this writ petition may be considered to justify condonation of delay.
Cases Referred
| Case | Citation | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| Asst. Commr. (CT), LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo SmithKline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. | 2020 (36) G.S.T.L. 305 (SC) | Once the statutory period for appeal has expired, writ petitions should not ordinarily be entertained. |
| Unreported DB decision (MAT 2387 of 2023, Cal HC) | – | In a similar matter, order was treated as show cause notice; however, distinguishable as petitioner here had multiple hearing opportunities. |
Between Fine Lines
This judgment reiterates that writ petitions cannot bypass the appellate mechanism under tax law unless exceptional circumstances exist. For businesses, the lesson is clear: always respond to hearing notices and timely file appeals rather than approaching High Courts belatedly.
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.”
