Case Details: Ravray Construction vs. Add. Commissioner, CGST and CE, Vadodara 1 (2025) 34 Centax 290 (Guj.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Bhargav D. Karia & P. M. Raval, JJ.
- S/Shri Abhay Y. Desai & D.K. Trivedi, for the Petitioner
- Shri Param V. Shah, for the Respondent
Facts of the Case
The assessee was engaged in the business of construction, renovation or alteration of public roads. During the financial year 2016-2017, the assessee provided services for construction, renovation and alteration of public roads to the main contractor. The main contractor deducted TDS on the contract value under section 194C of the Income Tax Act. Dharamshil Agencies v. Union of India [2021 (55) GSTL 516 (Guj.)] In the instant case, the Assistant Commissioner issued a show cause notice to the assessee invoking the extended period of limitation. The demand was raised based on the difference in value reported in the income tax return/Form 26AS under the Income Tax Act and the ST-3 return filed by the assessee seeking to recover the service tax amount along with interest and penalty. The show cause notice stated that pre-consultation notice was not mandatory as per Paragraph 5 of the circular dated 10.03.2017. However, no such pre-consultation notice was issued by the Assistant Commissioner or by the Principal Commissioner before the issuance of the show cause notice. The assessee replied to the show cause notice, but the Assistant Commissioner passed the order-in-original confirming the demand against the assessee. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed a writ petition to the Gujarat High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the Master Circular No. 1053/2/2017-CX., dated 10.03.2017, was issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, which mandating pre-show cause notice consultations by the Commissioner/Principal Commissioner with the assessee where the demand of duty is Rs. 50 lakhs or more except where the show cause notice is preventive or where the offence is made out. It was also admitted that the proposed demand of tax exceeds Rs. 50 lakhs. Accordingly, the show cause notice issued without pre-consultation was not sustainable, being contrary to the said circular.
List of Cases Cited
- Dharamshil Agencies v. Union of India — 2021 (55) G.S.T.L. 516 (Guj.) — Referred [Para 6]
- Jay Mahakali Industrial Service v. Union of India — (2025) 29 Centax 353 (Guj.) = 2025 (393) E.L.T. 28 (gUJ.) — Relied on [Paras 5, 13]
