Case Details: Ramnath Prasad Versus Principal Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Patna (2025) 29 Centax 306 (Pat.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Rajeev Ranjan Prasad & Ramesh Chand Malviya, JJ.
- S/Shri D.V. Pathy, Sr. Adv., Sadashiv Tiwari, Ms Prachi Pallavi, Hiresh Karan, Ms Shivani Dewalla, Advs., for the Petitioner.
- S/Shri Dr. Krishna Nandan Singh, Sr. Adv. (ASG), Anshuman Singh, Sr. SC, CGST & CX, Shivaditya Dhari Sinha, Adv. Amarjeet, Adv., for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, engaged in the business of transporting foodgrains under a government contract, was subjected to proceedings under the Finance Act, 1994 after the Department received information from the Income Tax Department indicating receipt of substantial amounts for taxable services. Based on this, the Department issued letters and emails asking the petitioner to provide documents and explanations. As there was no response, a show cause notice was issued, giving the petitioner the opportunity to submit a reply. The petitioner did not file any response to the notice. During adjudication, the Department gave multiple opportunities for personal hearing. The petitioner appeared once and requested more time but failed to submit any written reply or documents thereafter. Since the petitioner did not participate further, the Department passed impugned order confirming service tax liability, interest, and penalty. The petitioner challenged the order before the Patna High Court, alleging denial of natural justice.
High Court Held
The Hon’ble Patna High Court held that the order passed by the Department did not warrant interference, as the petitioner was given ample opportunity to reply and to participate in the proceedings but failed to do so. It observed that the principles of natural justice were followed in adjudication stages, and the petitioner’s non-participation could not be used to invalidate the order. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
List of Cases Cited
- Rochem Separation Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India — Writ Petition No. 822 of 2021 by Bombay High Court — Referred [Para 6]
- Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner — 2019 (25) G.S.T.L. 486 (Del.) — Referred [Para 6]
- Principal Commissioner v. Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd. — 2020 (32) G.S.T.L. J121 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 6]
- Kanak Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India — CWJC No. 18398 of 2023, decided on 4-4-2024 by Patna High Court — Referred [Paras 11, 20, 23]
- Commissioner v. Northern Operating Systems Pvt. Ltd. — 2022 (61) G.S.T.L. 129 (S.C.) — Relied [Paras 12, 27]
- Cosmic Dye Chemical v. Collector — 1995 (75) E.L.T. 721 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 12]
- Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 by Patna High Court — Referred [Para 20]
- Mangal Murti Constructions v. Union of India — CWJC No. 4541 of 2024 by Patna High Court — Relied [Paras 21, 37]
- Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer-Cum-Assessing Authority — 2023 (384) E.L.T. 8 (S.C.) = (2023) 3 Centax 49 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 21]
- Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil — (2010) 8 SCC 329 — [Para 21]
- Commissioner v. Fiat India Pvt. Ltd. — 2012 (283) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.) — [Para 31]
List of Departmental Clarification Cited
- C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 1053/2/2017-C.X., dated 10-3-2017 [Para 6]
- Instruction F. No. 1080/9/DLA/MISC/15, dated 21-12-2015 [Para 6]
- Instruction No. 5/2023-GST, dated 13-12-2023 [Paras 9, 31]
List of Notifications Cited
- Notification No. 25/2012-S.T., dated 20-6-2012 [Paras 3, 14]
