Case Details: Patchava Karunakar Versus Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax, Jharsuguda Division (2025) 32 Centax 297 (Ori.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
-
Harish Tandon, CJ. and M.S. Raman, J.
- S/Shri Anil Bezawada a/w. Subrat Panda, Advs., for the Petitioner.
- Shri Mukesh Agarwal, Junior Standing Counsel, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The Petitioner became aware of the attachment of its bank account and subsequently ascertained that such attachment related to certain demands raised through an Order-in-Original passed by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Petitioner submitted that no show cause notice had been served prior to the issuance of the said order or the consequential attachment, thereby violating the mandatory requirement of prior notice under the statute. It was contended that the absence of notice deprived the Petitioner of an opportunity to be heard and rendered the entire proceedings vitiated. On this basis, the Petitioner challenged the validity of the attachment as well as the underlying adjudication. The matter was accordingly placed before the Orissa High Court.
High Court Held
The Orissa High Court held that the service of a show cause notice is a statutory prerequisite under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and any demand or recovery action undertaken without such notice is contrary to law. Since no show cause notice had been served upon the Petitioner, the Court found that the attachment of the bank account and the Order-in-Original could not be sustained. The impugned proceedings were accordingly set aside, and the matter was remanded to the competent authority for fresh adjudication after granting the Petitioner an opportunity of hearing.
