TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 982
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ayable by the petitioner for the period from July 2017 to March 2018. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the entire proceedings culminating in Ext.P4 order are without jurisdiction and therefore, notwithstanding the availability of any alternate remedy, the petitioner is entitled to challenge Ext.P4 by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the period for which the liability was imposed on the petitioner is in respect of the financial year 2017-18. It is submitted that under sub-section (10) of Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Acts, the time limit for completion of proceedings is three years from the due date for furnishing of annual return....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssuance of show cause notice has also been extended, it must be held that the time limit for issuance of show cause notice has not been extended. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has in Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. M/s.Dilip Kumar and Company and others [(2018) IX SCC 1], held that when there is ambiguity in the provisions of a taxing statute, the law must be interpreted in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 5. I have considered the contentions raised. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner must necessarily fail on a proper interpretation of Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Acts. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 73 read as under:- "73. (1) Where it appears to the proper officer that any tax has not been ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sions requiring this Court to apply any rule of interpretation in favour of the assessee. In Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai (supra) it was held as follows: "25. At the outset, we must clarify the position of "plain meaning rule or clear and unambiguous rule" with respect of tax law. 'The plain meaning rule" suggests that when the language in the statute is plain and unambiguous, the Court has to read and understand the plain language as such, and there is no scope for any interpretation. This salutary maxim flows from the phrase 'cum inverbis nulla ambiguitas est, non debet admitti voluntatis quaestio'." 6. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner has not made out any case for interference under Article 226 of the Const....