Damodar Engineers Pvt. Ltd. V. Union of India

WP(C)/23283/2016

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Damodar Engineers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. as petitioners challenging an enhanced demand order issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Rourkela. The petitioners argued that the order was passed without considering documents requested from the Income-tax Authority, and before receiving the necessary information, which was still under request at the time of the order. The Revenue contended that the order was appealable and the petitioners should have approached the appellate forum instead of filing a writ petition. The court, after considering the arguments and the procedural lapses in the issuance of the order, decided to quash the order and remand the matter for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 693588 (HC-ORISSA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 15-04-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Utkal Metal v. State, Commissioner of Income-tax v. Patel Proteins (P) Ltd., Commissioner of Income-tax-I v. Vrundavan Roller Floor Mill
• Laws Referred To: Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: C S MISHRA
• Assessee Lawyers: R P KAR; A N RAY
• Keywords: Application of mind; Opportunity of Hearing; Quash order; Undue Haste; Writ petition; Enhanced Demand; Assessment Process
• Section: 02/CCE/S.TAX/RKL/2016-17

Judgement Text

" Page 1 of 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 23283 of 2016 M/s Damodar Engineers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ….. Petitioners Mr. R.P. Kar, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. A.N. Ray, Advocate Vs. Union of India & Anr. ….. Opposite Parties Mr. C.S. Mishra, Sr. Standing Counsel for Revenue CORAM: DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI MR. JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY ORDER 15.04.2024 Order No. 03. This matter is taken up by hybrid mode. 2. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the Order-in-Original No. 02/CCE/S.TAX/RKL/2016-17 dated 14.09.2016 under Annexure-4, by which an enhanced demand has been raised by the authority without looking into the documents, which had been sought for by the Commissioner himself. 3. Mr. R.P. Kar, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. A.N. Ray, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently contended that when the process of assessment was continuing, at that point of time, the Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Rourkela Commissionerate-opposite party no.2 sought for certain information from the Income tax Authority and, instead of awaiting for such information, has passed the order impugned without any application of mind and with undue haste. It is further contended that the matter is fully covered by order dated 20.03.2019 passed by this Court in STREV No. 127 of 2004 (Utkal Metal v. State), where referring to the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Patel Proteins (P) Ltd., (2017) Page 2 of 3 88 taxmann.com 506 (Gujarat) and the case of Commissioner of Income-tax-I v. Vrundavan Roller Floor Mill, (2016) 72 taxmann.com 250 (Gujarat) this Court has answered the questions of law raised in the said STREV. Therefore, he contended that the matter should be disposed of in view of the law decided by this Court. 4. Mr. C.S. Mishra, learned Sr. Standing Counsel for Revenue, on the other hand, contended that the order impugned being appealable one, the petitioners should have preferred appeal instead of filing this writ petition and whatever relief has been asked from this Court that could have been adjudicated by the appellate forum. As such, invoking extraordinary jurisdiction the petitioners cannot seek such relief. It is further contended that the order of this Court, which has been relied upon by the petitioners, is not applicable to the petitioner-company at this juncture and, as such, the order impugned passed by the Commissioner-opposite party no.2 is absolutely well justified and the same does not call for interference by this Court. 5. Having heard Mr. R.P. Kar, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. A.N. Ray, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. C.S. Mishra, learned Sr. Standing Counsel for Revenue and after going through the records, this Court finds that the order impugned has been passed, when the Commissioner himself had sought for certain information from the Income-tax Commissioner and when such information was awaiting, the order impugned has been passed without any application of mind and with undue haste. More so, without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the Commissioner has passed the order impugned without waiting for the information sought for by him, which may have bearing for adjudication of the case itself. 6. In view of such position, instead of directing the petitioners to prefer appeal, this Court thinks it just and proper to quash the Order-in- Original No. 02/CCE/S.TAX/RKL/2016-17 dated 14.09.2016 under Page 3 of 3 Annexure-4 and remand the matter to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. Therefore, the Order-in-Original No. 02/CCE/S.TAX/RKL/2016-17 dated 14.09.2016 under Annexure- 4 is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Rourkela Commissionerate, Rourkela-opposite party no.2 to re-hear the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law by affording opportunity of hearing and taking into consideration the judgments relied upon by the petitioners as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. Needless to mention, the Commissioner of Income-tax will cooperate opposite party no.2, so far as information sought for by him, for just and proper adjudication of the case. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Subhasmita (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE (G. SATAPATHY) JUDGE Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA DAS Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 16-Apr-2024 20:02:27 Signature Not Verified "