Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010125042022 2026:GAU-AS:10104 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5499/2022 RANJAN DUTTA S/O- LATE MOHENDRA DUTTA , R/O- BANIPUR DEKHARI GAON, BANIPUR, DIBRUGARH, ASSAM-786003 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND ANR REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE , DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NEW DELHI 2:THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GST DIBRUGARH MILAN NAGAR LANE -F P.O-C.R BUILDING DIBRUGARH-786003 ASSA B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Advocate for the petitioner(s) : Mr. P Das Advocate for the respondent(s) : Mr. K Jain on behalf of Mr. SC Keyal Page No.# 2/5 Standing Counsel, CGST Date on which Judgment is reserved: NA Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 22.07.2026 Whether the Pronouncement is of the : Yes Operative Part of the Judgment Whether the Full Judgment has been : NO Pronounced JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL) Heard Mr. P Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. K Jain, the learned counsel submits that his Senior Mr. SC Keyal, the learned Standing Counsel, CGST had instructed him to appear on behalf of the CGST Department. 2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the Order-in-Original dated 24.03.2022, which the petitioner claims to have received it on 09.04.2022. 3. By the said Order-in-Original dated 24.03.2022, the Principal Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Dibrugarh had impugned a Service Tax and Cess amounting to Rs.5,52,37,695/- for the period from 2014-15 (Oct-March) to 2017-18 (Upto June 2017). Additionally penalty and interest was imposed. Page No.# 3/5 4. The grounds on which the petitioner has assailed the Order-in-Original dated 24.03.2022 are that the petitioner was not afforded another date for personal hearing when requested and the DIN number so appearing in the Order-in-Original dated 24.03.2022 appears to be used twice. 5. The contentions of the petitioner as could be seen from the perusal of the writ petition does not convince this Court to entertain the instant writ petition, more particularly, taking into account that the petitioner was issued the show cause notice under the first proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 as far back as on 31.12.2020, thereby granting the petitioner the liberty to file reply within 30(thirty) days from the date of receipt of the said show cause notice. However, the petitioner did not avail such an opportunity. 6. It is also seen that subsequent thereto, on 13.01.2022, a personal hearing was granted to the petitioner by fixing a date on 18.02.2022 at 12 PM. The petitioner did not even avail the said opportunity and sought for an accommodation. 7. It is the further contention of the petitioner that on 30.03.2022, the petitioner submitted a reply to the show cause notice dated 31.12.2020. The said reply in the opinion of this Court was much belated, taking into account that the Order-in-Original dated 24.03.2022 was already passed. 8. Considering the above, this Court does not find any jurisdictional error committed by the Principal Commissioner, CGST for entertaining the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, more particularly, when the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy, as provided under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. 9. Considering the above, the instant writ petition, therefore, stands disposed Page No.# 4/5 of with the following observations and directions: (i). This Court is not inclined to entertain the dispute as regards the legality and validity of the Order-in-Original dated 24.03.2022, which has been impugned in the instant proceedings. (ii). This Court further takes note of that the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy as provided under Section 85 of the Finance Act 1994. (iii). The dismissal of the instant writ petition shall not preclude or prejudice the petitioner to avail the Appellate remedy as provided under the Finance Act, 1994 against the Order-in-Original dated 24.03.2022. (iv). This Court further takes note of that within the period of limitation as provided for filing an appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 24.03.2022, the present writ petition was filed on 21.06.2022 and thereupon the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court had issued notice. (v). The present proceedings, thereupon, has been pending since then on account of the inaction on the part of the respondents in filing their response. Under such circumstances, as the petitioner has been bona fidely litigating the present proceedings under a belief that this Court would entertain the instant writ petition, it is the opinion of this Court that the period during which the present writ petition has been pending, i.e. from 21.06.2022 till date, be excluded while computing the period of limitation. (vi). This Court further takes note of that the submission of Mr. P Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that if the interim order is not continued for a particular period of time, thereby providing the opportunity to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of filing an appeal, the petitioner would be severely prejudiced. Page No.# 5/5 (vii). Considering the above, this Court grants a period of 30(thirty) days from today to the petitioner to prefer an Appeal under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 against the Order-in-Original dated 24.03.2022 and in the circumstance, the said Appeal is preferred within the period of 30(thirty) days as hereinabove granted, the Appellate authority shall adjudicate the appeal on merits without insisting on the question of limitation. (viii). This Court further taking into account that the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court had granted an interim protection is of the further opinion that the interim protection so granted vide the order dated 07.09.2022 should be extended for a period of 30(thirty) days from the date of the present order. Accordingly for a period of 30(thirty) days from today, the interim order passed on 07.09.2022 shall stand extended. (ix). This Court further observes that the appellate authority would be at liberty to pass such order as deemed fit in accordance with law without being influenced by the extension of the interim directions passed by this Court. (x). This Court also takes note of that the appeal under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 is a continuation of the original proceedings and under such circumstances, the petitioner would be entitled to place all the necessary materials including the documents on the basis of which the petitioner claims that they are not liable to the demand so made in the show cause notice dated 31.12.2020, as well as the Order-in-Original dated 24.03.2022. 10. No costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant