9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 1228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts of the case are that the petitioner is a public limited company duly incorporated and registered under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and is involved in the business of manufacturing cigarettes having its registered office at 3558, Plot No. Old 48, 1st Floor Ganesh Pura B Street No. 4 Narag Colony, Tri Nagar New Delhi. The petitioner's manufacturing unit is situated at 14-B, Sector F, Industrial Area, Sanwer Road, Indore. 3 . The cigarettes manufactured by the petitioner is an excisable product which is liable to be assessed for the Central Excise Duty under the provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944;(as well as GST laws). 4 . The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking quashment of show cause notice No. 25/DGGI/RUI/ADD/GST/2022-23 dated 08.06.2022 issued by the respondent no.2 alleging that the petitioner has manipulated manufacturing and production of cigarettes and has evaded the GST and cess which is payable to the respondents, as also the show cause notice No. 50/DEGI/RUI/ADD/C.Ex./2022-23 dated 03.08.2022 issued by the respondent no.3 alleging to demand the excise duty comprising Basic Excise Duty(BED) and National Calamity Contingent Duty(NCCD). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iated against the officers who are not following instructions in relation to physical control duty in true letter and spirit. It is absolutely incorrect to say that the show cause notices have been issued even on the production capacity of machines. More than 250 distinguished evidences have been relied upon and the tax demand has been concluded based on the number of cigarettes that were produced from the utilization of filter rods by the petitioner resulting into demand of Rs. 2022.91 Crores (GST Rs. 1946.23 Crores and CE Rs. 76.68 crores) for the period July, 2017 to June 2020. He further goes on to contend that had the show cause notice and the demand of tax based on production capacity, then as per the assessment made by the panel of chartered engineering, calculation of tax evaded by the petitioner comes to Rs. 4238.62 Crores(GST 4059.16 Crores CE 179.45 crores) for the same period, which is not the case herein. 8. Learned Sr. counsel further contended that this Court cannot exercise the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in as much as, disputed question of facts are involved in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner that show cause notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny dispute arises regarding the calculation, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent authority or the appellate authority by preferring an appeal in the manner prescribed. However, a writ petition need not be entertained at this stage and High Court cannot adjudicate the issues relating to huge economic offence of stealthily procuring raw materials clandestine manufacturing and fraudulent supply of filter cigarettes of various brands during a particular period without payment of taxes, as alleged by the respondents resulting into issuance of show cause notices which were issued after conducting a detailed investigation in the matter by them. Even if the procedures are not followed by the authorities before issuance of show cause notices, they are bound to do so in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules. 13. Various grounds have been raised while challenging the show cause notice, however, the fact remains that the Respondents have only issued a show cause notice and the petitioner has been asked to explain as to why the evaded tax amount be not recovered from the petitioner. A writ against a show cause notice or demand notice can be entertained only on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the same should have been availed by the litigants instead of approaching the High Courts: (i) Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Private Ltd vs. Union of India and others reported in (2014) 15 SCC 44, wherein it has been held as under: "when the statute provides for statutory appeal, the said remedy is to be availed by the litigating parties". (ii) In Hameed Kunju vs. Nizam reported in (2017) 8 SCC 611, the Apex Court held that: "any petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India should be dismissed in limine where there is statutory provision of appeal." (iii) In the case of Ansal Housing and Construction Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2016) 13 SCC 305, it is held that "when there statutory appeal is provided, then the said remedy has to be availed." (iv) In the case of Union of India Vs. Coastal Container Transporters Association [SLP(C) 2276 of 2019]. For ready reference, relevant para is reproduced below: "19. On the other hand, we find force in the contention of the learned senior counsel, Sri Radhakrishnan, appearing for the appellants that the High Court has committed error in entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
