9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 623X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 22 passed by Respondent No. 3, only to the extent it purports to impose penalty on the Petitioner. 3. The Petitioner is one of the partners in a firm called M/s. Sunder's International (for short the "said Firm"). A Show Cause Notice dated 28th September, 2020 was issued by Respondent No. 2 to the said Firm, proposing to demand Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 9,93,80,686/-, along with interest and penalty. The Show Cause Notice, in paragraph 14 (vii), also proposed imposition of penalty on the Petitioner in his capacity as a partner, under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Sections 142 and 174 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Despite the Show Cause Notice proposing to impose penalty on the Petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rsonally. 6. The main ground of challenge in the above Writ Petition is that there was no question of imposing any penalty upon the Petitioner (in his personal capacity) when the said Show Cause Notice was never addressed to the Petitioner and was never served upon him. In other words, there has been a complete breach of the principles of natural justice and it is on this ground that the Order dated 2nd December, 2022 passed by Respondent No. 3 against the Petitioner is assailed. 7. From the record, we find that indeed the Show Cause Notice has only been addressed to the said Firm and not to the Petitioner. If the Show Cause Notice proposed to impose any penalty on the Petitioner, it was incumbent upon the authorities to address the Show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fference to the outcome of the present Petition. As things stands today, the Show Cause Notice has been held to be time barred by the CESTAT. There is no stay of the said order. This is apart from the fact that as far as the present Petitioner is concerned, as noted above, there has been a complete breach of the principles of natural justice before passing the impugned order qua the Petitioner. Once this is the case, even assuming for the sake of argument that the Revenue were to succeed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Order passed against the Petitioner herein still cannot be allowed to stand and would have to be set aside. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, the above Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
