M/S ASSAM RIFLES GROUP INSURANCE SCHEME (ARGIS) vs ADDL DIRECTOR GENL (ADJUDICATION) DIRECTORATE GENL OF GST INTELLIGENCE (ADJUDICATION CELL), AND ORS.
- Court
- High Court of Meghalaya
2026:MLHC:961-DB
Serial No. 01
Supplementary List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP(C) No. 377 of 2025 Date of Hearing: 19.05.2026
Date of Decision: 01.09.2026
M/s Assam Rifles Group Insurance Scheme (ARGIS)
Lower Arbuthnot Road, Nongrimmaw, East Khasi
Hills, Shillong, Meghalaya – 793001
Represented by its Director, Shri. Raju Kumar Singh,
S/o (L) Narayan Singh
R/o Assam Rifles Group Insurance Directorate,
HQ DGAR, Laitumkhrah, Shillong, East Khasi
Hills District, Meghalaya :::Petitioner
Versus
1.Additional Director General (Adjudication)
Directorate General of GST Intelligence
(Adjudication Cell), West Block-VIII, Wing-6,
nd
2 Floor, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110066
2.Additional Director General (DGCEI)
(HQRS), Directorate General of Central
Excise Intelligence
West Block-VIII, Wing-6,
nd
2 Floor, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110066
3.Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs,
Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue,
North Block, New Delhi-110001 :::Respondents
Page 1 of 27
2026:MLHC:961-DB
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge
Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. S. Ghosh, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. N. Khera, Adv.
Ms. A. Syiem, Adv.
Mr. A. Behura, Adv.
Mr. R. Kharkrang, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Dr. N. Mozika, DSGI with
Ms. M. Myrchiang, Adv.
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes/No
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
Per H.S. Thangkhiew, Judge:
1. This writ petition has been preferred by M/s Assam Rifles Group
Insurance Scheme (ARGIS), challenging the Order -in- Original dated
12.03.2025, issued by the respondent No. 1 under Section 74(2) of the
Finance Act, 1994, which confirmed the demand for Service Tax, invoked
the extended period of limitation under Section 73(1) and imposed interest
and penalties under Section 75, 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.
Page 2 of 27
2026:MLHC:961-DB
The petitioner has also assailed a notice dated 05.10.2016, apart from the
order dated 12.03.2025, on the ground that the very jurisdictional fact
necessary to trigger the invocation of Section 73(1) of the Finance Act,
1994, and the proviso thereto, which is the non-levy, short-levy etc., of
Service Tax by a person chargeable under the Finance Act, 1994, has been
erroneously assumed and decided in the present case.
2. The challenge to the notice and order is on several jurisdictional and
substantive grounds, firstly, that they are a public authority performing a
statutory duty and the mandatory deductions for mutual benefit do not
constitute ‘provision of service’ for ‘consideration’ and are thus outside the
ambit of Service Tax. Secondly, for the period after 01.04.2012, it is
claimed by the petitioner that the same falls under the Negative List, as the
service provided by the Government, and thirdly that, the impugned order
was passed after a delay of nearly 8.5 years (3081 days), from the date of
issuance of the show cause notice, which the petitioner contends is a
manifest violation of the timelines prescribed under Section 73(4B), and is
therefore arbitrary and time barred. The fourth ground taken is that a
Notification No. 22/2014-ST dated 16.09.2014, is ultra vires for illegally
vesting all India jurisdiction on the revenue officers, inasmuch as, the
adjudicating officer belonged to the same cadre, as the Investigating
Authority.
Page 3 of 27
2026:MLHC:961-DB
3. Mr. S. Ghosh, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. N. Khera,
learned counsel for the petitioner has firstly addressed this Court on the
issue of delay. Reference has been made to Section 73(4B) of the Finance
Act, which he submits has prescribed certain time limits towards
determination of assessment proceedings. Section 73 he submits, with
regard to the recovery of service tax not levied or paid, or short levied, or
short paid or erroneously refunded at 73(4B)(b), has provided that the same
is to be within one year from the date of notice, where it is possible to do
so, in respect of cases falling under the proviso to sub-section (1) or the
proviso to sub-section (4A). This provision he contends, makes it clear that
the revenue authorities are to complete the assessment within the
prescribed timelines unless there are justified causes or reasons, which
precluded such time limits from being adhered to. In the case at hand he
submits, the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section
73(1) of the Act, has been invoked against the petitioner on grounds of
willful suppression, which would therefore attract Section 73(4B)(b), and
thus the concerned Central Excise Officer (Respondent No. 1), as far as
possible to do so, was to determine the amount of Service Tax vide an
assessment order within one year from the date of notice.
4. The respondents it is submitted, have unduly delayed framing an
assessment without any justified cause against the petitioner under the
Page 4 of 27
2026:MLHC:961-DB
proviso to Section 74(1) of the Finance Act, and has referred to Para – 140
of the writ petition, to illustrate this contention, wherein a table has been
provided showing the sequence of dates, from the date of issuance of show
cause on 05.10.2016, reply filed thereto on 25.10.2016, and personal
hearing being granted on 05.04.2024, and on subsequent dates thereafter
culminating on the impugned order dated 12.03.2025. This statement of
facts he contends, shows a significant delay in framing the assessment, of
nearly 3081 days, from the date of show cause notice dated 05.10.2016,
which is well beyond the period of one year within which the respondent
No. 1, was to strive to complete the assessment proceedings in terms of
Section 73(4B)(b) of the Finance Act, 1994. On the respondents
contentions and explanation for the delay that the same was caused by the
petitioner’s request, for retrospective exemption, and time taken for inter-
departmental/coordination, it has been submitted that an investigation
should substantially precede the issuance of a show cause notice, and
further Section 33A restricts adjournments to three, and representations or
repeated requests, cannot indefinitely extend the statutory timeline. In
support of his arguments, reliance has been placed on the cases of IDFC
First Bank, Sunder System, L.R. Sharma and company and Power
Spectrum Sarbidpur . Reliance has also been placed on the CBIC
Page 5 of 27
2026:MLHC:961-DB
instructions dated 18.11.2021, which directed adjudication of extended
period for Service Tax Notices to be within one year where possible.
5. It is then submitted that the Revenue Authorities had incorrectly
assumed the jurisdictional facts necessary to initiate tax recovery under
Sections 73(1) and 74(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, and that the mandatory
pre-requisite for issuance of notice, or framing an order is the existence of
an actual amount of Service Tax due from a person chargeable to tax. The
schemes he submits, were not taxable services under either the Positive or
Negative List Regimes, and no charge of tax was ever created, and as such,
the charging provisions of Section 66 and 66B, were never triggered, which
vitiated the entire assessment proceedings for want of jurisdiction. Reliance
has been placed on the following decisions namely Carona Ltd. vs.
Parvathy Swaminathan and Sons (2008) SCC 559 and Raza Textiles vs.
Income Tax Officer AIR 1973 SC 1362 , to try and show that an authority
cannot grant itself powers by misinterpreting facts, and that a Court or a
Tribunal cannot clothe itself with jurisdiction by incorrectly deciding, or
assuming a jurisdictional fact.
6. The Learned Senior Counsel has also asserted that Notification No.
22/2014-ST dated 16.09.2014 is ultra vires, under which DGGI/DGCEI
Officers were purportedly given all-India jurisdiction under Chapter V of
the Finance Act 1994, inasmuch as, Rule 3 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994
Page 6 of 27
2026:MLHC:961-DB
permits Central Excise Officers to exercise powers only within specified
local limits and in relation to specified taxable services. It is submitted that
this statutory restriction does not permit the Board to confer unrestricted
pan-India jurisdiction through a notification. He submits that the fact that
DGCEI officer had all-India powers under the Central Excise Rules cannot,
automatically confer the same jurisdiction under the Finance Act, 1994. As
such, he submits the Notification No. 22/2014-ST dated 16.09.2014, having
exceeded the Boards delegated power is ultra vires, and consequently the
show-cause notice and subsequent order, issued by Delhi based authorities
regarding a Shillong based entity, and its activities is without jurisdiction.
The case of Redington (India) Limited , he submits failed to consider the
specific ‘local limits’ restriction in Rule 3, and also currently the subject
challenge in the Madras High Court.
7. It has also been argued that the show-cause notice was issued by a
DGCEI/DGGI Officer, while it was adjudicated by an Additional Director
General (Adjudication) of the same organisation, which he submits violates
the principle of ‘no person should be a judge in their own cause’. The
CBIC Circular No. 1053/02/2017-CX dated 10.03.2017, which permits the
ADG (Adjudication) DGCEI, he submits to adjudicate cases and notice by
DGCEI officers, itself facilitate institutional bias. The learned Senior
counsel has then pointed out that under the subsequent GST regime, DGGI
Page 7 of 27
2026:MLHC:961-DB
officers were confined principally to investigation and issuance of notices,
while adjudication was assigned to separate officers, which he contends is
recognition of the earlier problem of bias. He therefore submits that both
the circular and the resulting order violate the principle of natural justice
and Articles 14 and 265.
8. It is then submitted that Service Tax itself is not legally leviable on
the Assam Rifles schemes, as the demand concerns premiums and
subscriptions relating to 3(three) schemes operated for the Assam Rifles
personnel namely, Death Benefit Insurance Scheme and administrative
charges, Disability Benefit Scheme and Post Retirement Insurance Scheme.
The respondents he submits for the period 01.04.2011 – 31.03.2012
(positive list regime) had treated the schemes as taxable life insurance
business, under Section 65(105)(zx). This he contends is incorrect, as the
Finance Act, borrows the meaning of ‘life insurance business’ from the
Insurance Act, 1938, wherein the petitioner was specifically exempted
under Section 118(c) by Government Order dated 31.07.1978, and thus, it
cannot be treated as carrying on ‘life insurance business’ or is an ‘insurer’.
The subscriptions he submits, are compulsory deductions for schemes that
are statutory welfare arrangements rather than commercial insurance
business, and does not involve consideration pursuant to a contractual
bargain, and thus, without consideration there is no relevant contractual
Page 8 of 27
2026:MLHC:961-DB
relationship, and hence, no taxable service. In this context, the learned
Senior counsel has relied on the case of Govind Saran Ganga Saran vs.
Commissioner of Tax AIR 1985 SC 1041 , to show that a valid tax levy
requires an identifiable taxable event and taxable person. It is reiterated that
since the petitioner is not carrying on a ‘life insurance business’ on being
exempted under the Insurance Act, they cannot be classified as an ‘insurer’
for Service Tax purposes.
9. It is then contended that even if the definitions of the Insurance Act,
1938 were applied, they would still not be taxable, as the activity is not a
‘life insurance business’ as defined under Section 2(11) of the 1938 Act, as
it does not involve a commercial intent, and further they are not performing
a taxable service because the schemes lack ‘consideration’. The Learned
Senior Counsel then argues that activities carried out welfare or as ancillary
to a primary non-commercial objective does not constitute a business, and
providing insurance benefits solely for the welfare of the Assam Rifles
personnel is not a commercial business. It is then pointed out that the
subscriptions are mandatory deductions from salaries, and the members
have no option to opt out, meaning that they do not engage in a voluntary
act or a promise, that qualifies as consideration under Section 2(d) of the
Contract Act.
Page 9 of 27
2026:MLHC:961-DB
10. It is then contended that the primary requirement to trigger the
charging section 66B, was never met because no taxable service was
provided, and that under Section 65B(44) a service is defined as an activity
performed for consideration, and as such, therefore the compulsory
deductions from the Assam Rifles personnel cannot constitute
‘consideration’ because there is no voluntary quid pro quo . It is then
argued that alternatively, even if the activity (schemes) is treated as a
service, it would fall under the Section 66D negative list, and therefore
exempt from tax, inasmuch as, Section 66D(a) excludes services by
Government or Local Authority from Service Tax. The petitioner it is
submitted, qualifies as ‘government’ and has all the trappings to be
considered as such, i.e. exemptions granted under the Insurance Act and
Life Insurance Corporation Act, its operation under statutory rules,
government control and audit, maintenance of accounts under accounting
provisions. Reliance has also been placed upon a CBIC Circular dated
18.12.2006, which he submits that statutory functions performed by public
authorities for compulsory levies do not constitute taxable services.
11. In rounding up his submissions, the learned Senior Counsel has
reiterated his submissions that the impugned order dated 12.03.2025, is
liable to be quashed for being passed after an unexplained delay of 8.5
years, the Officers who issued and adjudicated the notice lacked pan-India
Page 10 of 27
2026:MLHC:961-DB
jurisdiction, apart from the adjudication being in breach of the principles of
natural justice, and that the welfare schemes were not taxable services
under the Positive List or Negative List Regime.
12. Dr. N. Mozika, learned DSGI assisted by Ms. M. Myrchiang, learned
counsel for the respondents has submitted that the services rendered by the
petitioner under the various schemes are taxable to the extent that for the
period prior to 01.07.2012, service tax operated under the Positive List
regime and that the adjudicating authority had correctly examined the
nature of the activities, their nexus with insurance related functions and the
statutory framework before concluding that the services were taxable. It is
contended that the petitioner’s reliance on the concept of ‘Government’ and
‘State’ is misplaced particularly after the introduction of the Negative List
Regime w.e.f. 01.07.2012. Under this framework he submits, all services
became taxable unless specifically excluded by statute or covered by the
Negative List under Section 66D of the Finance Act, 1994, and as such,
even if it is assumed that the petitioner’s interpretation regarding life
insurance business was accepted, such contentions could only have limited
relevance to a portion of the pre-2012 period and cannot govern the
substantial post 2012 period. It is further submitted that the jurisdiction
exercise by the DGCEI and the adjudicating authority was fully supported
by statute, and that the impugned order was passed in accordance with the
Page 11 of 27
2026:MLHC:961-DB
requirements of the statutory provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 i.e.
Section 73(1) and Section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017. It is also asserted
that the show-cause notice was issued under the proviso of Section 74(1) of
the Finance Act, 1994, by the respondent No. 2, after discovery of material
facts indicating suppression, willful mis-statement with the intent to evade
tax. The conferment of all India jurisdiction he submits, upon the
respondents No. 1 and 2, is well within the competence of the respondent
No. 3 and is consistent with the scheme of the Finance Act, 1994, and the
Central Excise Act, 1944.
13. Learned DSGI then contends that the assertion against the impugned
order dated 12.03.2025, as being time barred due to a delay of 8.5 years is
incorrect, as Section 73(4B) of the Finance Act, 1994, is directory, and the
complexity of the case, inter-departmental co-ordination, scrutiny of
statutory records and detailed examination of the schemes operated by the
petitioner were essential to ensure correct assessment, hence, justifies the
time taken. It is submitted that the petitioner itself had approached the
Department of Revenue seeking exemption from levy of tax via numerous
letters, and that by a letter dated 14.05.2025, addressed to the Ministry of
Finance, had requested a re-consideration of the petitioner’s exemption
proposal.
Page 12 of 27
2026:MLHC:961-DB
14. On another aspect, it is submitted that the impugned order dated
12.03.2025, was passed by the competent authority within lawful
jurisdiction under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, and Section 174
of the CGST Act, 2017. It is submitted that once the investigation indicated
non-payment or short payment of service tax, the respondents were fully
empowered to initiate proceedings and that the petitioners blanket claim of
non-taxability cannot negate this assumption of jurisdiction, as the case is
based on concrete findings and statutory authorities under the Finance Act,
1994. It is also contended that the allegation that the adjudicating authority
had an interest in the outcome because the investigation and adjudication
were undertaken within the same departmental framework is untenable,
inasmuch as, tax statutes across the country contemplate investigation by
departmental authorities and adjudication by competent officers of the
same department, and that such institutional arrangements do not by
themselves create an apprehension of bias. The doctrine of bias, it is
submitted requires proof of personal interest, malafides, prejudice etc., but
no such materials has been produced to substantiate this allegation, and in
fact the impugned order demonstrates independent application of mind and
consideration of submissions advanced by the parties.
15. The respondents then submitted that the case of Govind Saran
Ganga Saran(supra) is inapplicable in the instant case, as all the essential
Page 13 of 27
2026:MLHC:961-DB
components for a valid tax levy such as taxable event, person liable, rate of
tax and measure of tax are clearly established under the Finance Act, 1994,
making the levy under Sections 66 and 66B read with Chapter – V legally
enforceable, complete and operative. The petitioner’s activities it is
contended such as collecting consideration and extending risk
cover/benefits attract the defination of ‘service’ regardless whether the
entity generates a profit amount, and the subscription amount collected
from members constitute clear and identifiable ‘consideration’ for the
benefit extended. It is also urged that reliance on exemptions from the
Insurance Act, Life Insurance Cooperation Act or Income Tax Act is
misconceived and irrelevant, as statutory exemption in a different
enactment does not automatically translate to an exemption from service
tax, unless the same is provided under Finance Act. It is also argued that
the petitioner’s status as a Trust, or its performance of welfare related tasks
under statutory oversight, does not automatically grant it the status of
Government for service tax purposes, because the status for tax purposes
must need mandatory statutory criteria and cannot be assumed by
implication.
16. With regard to the extended period of limitation invoked under
Section 73, it has been argued that the same was occasioned because the
petitioner willfully suppressed materials fact and failed to disclose taxable
Page 14 of 27
2026:MLHC:961-DB
activities which can be characterized as a deliberate act rather than a mere
default, and that ‘willful suppression’ is satisfied when an assessee fails to
disclose information exclusively within its own knowledge. On the
petitioner’s claim that the schemes were framed according to Government
instructions, it is submitted that the obligation to disclose or relevant
operational and financial particulars rests squarely on the petitioner. Thus,
it is submitted, the failure to furnish complete information regarding the
nature and taxability of the schemes squarely attracts the proviso to Section
73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994.
17. It is then submitted that since the impugned notice and order were
issued within the lawful statutory framework, the petitioner had recourse to
available statutory appellate remedy which has been by-passed by the
petitioner. It is asserted that the Finance Act, 1994, has an established
complete and comprehensive appellate hierarchy, for challenging
assessment orders including dispute over jurisdiction, limitation and the
validity of departmental actions, which the petitioner has chosen not to
avail of for unknown reasons. It is further submitted that merely
challenging a notification or circular does not make the alternative remedy
inefficacious, and that the petitioner being fully aware of the proceedings
and timelines, the approximately 5(five) month delay in pursuing the
Page 15 of 27
2026:MLHC:961-DB
remedy is deliberate and unexplained, and as such, the writ petition is liable
to be dismissed.
18. It is lastly contended that the prayer of the petitioner cannot be
acceded to as it is based on incorrect facts and misinterpretation of
statutory provisions. The impugned notification i.e. Notification No.
22/2014-ST dated 16.09.2014 and Circular No. 1053/02/2017-CX dated
10.03.2017, it is submitted was validly issued by the competent authorities
exercising powers vested by the Board, and that ARGIS is not exempt
under the Negative List of services (Section 66D) and therefore is liable for
the payment of tax.
19. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the issues that arise
for consideration are as follows:
(1) Whether the Impugned Order is manifestly arbitrary and time-
barred because it was issued after a delay of nearly 8.5 years
(3081) days from the Show-Cause Notice, violating the timelines
prescribed under Section 73(4B)?
(2) Whether the Notification No. 22/2014-ST is ultra vires Rule 3 of
the Service Tax Rules, 1994, because it purportedly vests
Respondent No. 1 and 2 with pan-India jurisdiction to issue
notices and adjudicate cases, which the Petitioner argues should
be restricted to “local limits”?
Page 16 of 27
2026:MLHC:961-DB
(3) Whether the mandatory deductions from salaries constitute
“consideration” (a quid pro quo) as defined under the Finance
Act, or if they are compulsory exactions that lack the element of a
contractual agreement?
(4) Whether the Petitioner falls under the definition of “Government”
for the purposes of the Negative List (Section 66D(a)), thereby
making its activities exempt from service tax?
(5) Whether the tax demand and the adjudication process violate
Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of India?
(6) Whether the Writ Petition is maintainable despite the existence of
an alternate remedy, particularly when the Petitioner challenges
the vires of a notification, alleges violations of natural justice, and
asserts a total lack of jurisdiction?
20. On the first issue, it is no doubt a fact that the impugned order dated
12.03.2025, was passed after a delay of 8.5 years (3081 days) after the
issuance of the show-cause notice dated 05.10.2016. In this regard, it
would be apposite to refer to Section 73(4B) of the Finance Act, 1994,
wherein time limits have been prescribed towards determination of
assessment proceedings, and the same is reproduced herein below.
Page 17 of 27
2026:MLHC:961-DB
“Section73. ………………………………………………
(4B) The Central Excise Officer shall determine the amount
of service tax due under sub-section (2)-
(a) within six months from the date of notice where it is
possible to do so, in respect of cases [falling under] sub-
section(1);
(b) within one year from the date of notice, where it is possible
to do so, in respect of cases falling under the proviso to
sub-section (1) or the proviso to sub-section (4A)”
A perusal of the aforementioned provision, shows that the Revenue
Authorities are mandated to complete the assessments within the prescribed
timelines unless justified reasons exist, that prevents the time limits from
being adhered to. It is seen from the facts that the extended period of
limitation under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Act, had been invoked
on grounds of willful suppression. As such, therefore, in view of this
invocation, Section 73(4B)(b) would be attracted, and thus, the concerned
Respondent No. 1, was as far as possible to do so, determine the amount of
service tax vide an assessment order within one year from the date of
notice.
21. In the instant case, a fact that cannot be ignored is that though the
show-cause notice is dated 05.10.2016, it is not disputed that the first
personal hearing was granted to the petitioner only on 05.04.2024, vide a
Page 18 of 27
2026:MLHC:961-DB
letter dated 14.03.2024, i.e. after nearly 2704 days, which is a significant
delay. The learned counsel for the petitioner in this context had laid great
emphasis on the judgments cited on this point, that the provisions of
Section 73(4B) are mandatory in nature, and if the same are to be
considered only directory or suggestive in nature, the timelines prescribed
would be nullified and would defeat the well settled principles of law that a
show-cause notice is required to be taken to its logical conclusion within a
reasonable period of time. This Court in the backdrop of the facts and
prevalent law, is therefore required to examine as to whether the long delay
in passing the impugned order is justifiable, for the reasons given by the
respondents, or whether the entire proceedings have been vitiated. The
respondents have sought to justify the inordinate delay in passing the
assessment order against the petitioner by contending that the proceedings
could not be concluded earlier due to the petitioner’s repeated failure to
furnish complete documents, clarify discrepancies and to provide necessary
records which have directly contributed to the time taken in finalizing the
assessment. Specific mention has been made by the respondents that the
petitioner had repeatedly approached the Department of Revenue through
various communications from 2017 onwards, seeking retrospective
exemption from levy of service tax, which was rejected and that even on
14.05.2025, the petitioner had sent a letter to the Ministry of Finance,
Page 19 of 27
2026:MLHC:961-DB
Department of Revenue requesting for the petitioner’s proposal of service
tax exemption to be re-considered. It has also been advanced that Section
73(4B) being directory, the contention of the order being time barred would
not arise. This Court on examining this contention and the provisions of
Section 73(4B), wherein the phrase ‘where it is possible to do so’ has been
used, deems it fit to refer to cases, wherein this question has arisen and
discussed.
22. In the case of IDFC First Bank vs. Union of India (2023) 10
Centax 256 (Bom) , at Paragraphs – 12, 15-18, on this issue, it has been
held as follows:
12. If such are the averments in the reply affidavit, we wonder as to
why respondent No.2 kept on granting requests of IDFC Ltd. for
adjournment and did not pass appropriate order and/or final orders
on the show cause notice. There is no justification whatsoever or any
reason set out for such lapse/inaction of respondent no. 2, which
would be acceptable, as set out in the reply affidavit, which can be
accepted as a plausible reason preventing the Commissioner from
passing appropriate orders for a period of almost five years upto
May 2015. We may also note that there is no justification whatsoever
for the inaction of the officer from 21 May 2015 to 10 June 2022
when the recent notice came to be issued.
15. From a plain reading of the provisions of Section 73(4B) and
more particularly, in the context of the legislative intent in
introducing sub-section (4B), we cannot accept such contention as
urged by the respondent that there is no mandate on the concerned
officer of the department to decide the show cause notices
expeditiously, and/or the timelines which are set out in sub-section
(4B) would be required to be held to be merely directory, as the
Page 20 of 27
2026:MLHC:961-DB
provision would make an allowance for a belated adjudication of the
show cause notice. In our opinion, such contention as urged on
behalf of the respondent would militate against the plain reading of
sub-section (4B) when it pointedly provides that the Central Excise
Officer "shall" determine the amount of service tax due under Section
73(2), which in Clause (a) thereof provides for the timelines, namely,
within six months from the date of notice where it is possible to do so,
in respect of cases falling under Section 73(1); and secondly, when it
provides that such determination be made within one year from the
date of notice, where it is possible to do so, in respect of cases falling
under the proviso to Section 73(1) or the proviso to Section 73(4A).
16. We may observe that the legislature providing that the
determination be made within six months from the date of the notice
as provided for in clause (a) of sub-section (4B) is concerned, cannot
be read to nullify or attaching no weightage to the timelines so
prescribed. It can however, be acceptable that a reasonable /
plausible delay beyond six months may in a given case be justified
depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, for reasons
which do not make it possible for the adjudicating officer to conclude
the proceedings of the show cause notice. This can be for reasons
which are acceptable in law which a reasonable body of persons
would accept to be absolutely justifiable, considering the duration of
such period. This would certainly not mean that it can be an
unexplained, unjustified, unreasonable and an inordinate delay. The
same principle would apply to clause (b) of sub-section (4B)
of Section 73.
17. We may also observe that when the legislature uses the words
'where it is possible to do so' in clauses (a) and (b), the legislature is
conscious of some free play which is required to be made available to
the adjudicating officer. However, such limited relaxation cannot be
intended to mean that it would defeat the sanctity and purpose for
which the period of six months and one year has been set out to
clause (a) and (b) of sub-section (4B). The word 'where it is possible
to do so' thus cannot be read to defeat the timelines of six months and
one year as set out in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (4B). Also
these words cannot be construed to mean that by use of such words a
complete freedom is available to the adjudicating officer to
Page 21 of 27
2026:MLHC:961-DB
adjudicate the show cause notice at his own sweet will, much less,
with such inordinate delay as in the present case which is of almost
more than 12 years.
18. If the interpretation of the provisions as canvassed on behalf of
the revenue is accepted, it would tantamount to defeating the well
settled principles of law that a show cause notice is required to be
taken to its logical conclusion within a reasonable period of time and
expeditiously, as a show cause notices issued under any fiscal
legislation and concerning recovery of revenue would have a very
serious concern and bearing on the public revenue. Hence, there
cannot be any laxity much less any lethargic approach on behalf of
the officers is delaying adjudication of such notices. The legislative
provisions which intend to bring about an expeditious and effective
adjudication of a show cause notice cannot be defeated by the
officers sitting tight on the show cause notice and/or not expeditiously
taking them to the logical conclusion. Such is the view repeatedly
taken in series of judgments of this Court, to which a detailed
reference has been made by us in our decision in Coventary Estates
Pvt. Ltd. (supra). These are decisions in ATA Freight Line (I) Pvt.
Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors. Writ Petition No. 3671 of 2022,
against which Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 828 of 2023
filed by the Union of India came to be dismissed by the Supreme
Court; in CMA-CGM Agencies (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India &
Ors. Writ Petition No. 1313 of 2021; in Shreenathji Logistics v.
Union of India & Ors. Writ Petition No. 540 of 2020; in Sushitex
Exports (India) Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. 2022 SCC
Online Bom. 191; in Sanghvi Reconditioners Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of
India, through the Secretary, Department of Revenue & Ors.; in
Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Union of India; in Parle International Ltd.
v. Union of India, and in Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing
Company Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of CGST and CX, DIV-IX,
Mumbai Central GST Commissionerate.”
Page 22 of 27
2026:MLHC:961-DB
23. The above quoted case has great persuasive value, as the facts and
circumstances are similar, where the respondents therein had also put up a
case that Section 73(4B) was only directory and that the delay was also
attributable to the petitioner therein on account of adjournments sought.
24. Other decisions cited by the petitioner are as follows:
(i) Sunder System Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India 2020 (33) GSTL
621 (Del.); Delhi High Court (dated 17.12.2019) (Ref. Pg.
626-629 of W.P.; Paras 8-12)
(ii) Ms L.R. Sharma and Co. vs. Union of India (2024 SCC
Online Del 9031); Delhi High Court (dated 20.12.2024) (Ref.
Pg. 630-639 of W.P; Paras 26-30)
(iii) M/s Power Spectrum Sarbidipur vs. Union of India,
Judgment dated 17.04.2025 in CWJC No. 16772/2024; Patna
High Court (Ref. Pg. 640-651; Paras 16-19)
25. In all the above noted decisions, what has been held is a consistent
view with regard to the purport of Section 73(4B) of the Finance Act, 1994,
such as, even if no time period is prescribed, the statutory authority must
exercise its jurisdiction within a reasonable period otherwise the
proceedings would be vitiated, and further that Section 73(4B), was framed
to ensure effective administration of taxation, and that a time frame of 6
months/1 year cannot be extended for an inordinate period without valid
Page 23 of 27
2026:MLHC:961-DB
justification. In the instant case, taking the well settled position of law into
consideration, the respondents have not provided any justified cause or
reason to keep proceedings pursuant to the show cause notice dated
05.10.2016, pending for 8.5 years, which in the considered view of this
Court caused an unreasonable and inordinate delay in passing of the
impugned order dated 12.03.2025.
26. Though as mentioned earlier, the respondents had attempted to
justify the delay and to place the onus on the petitioner by stating that
exemption has been sought, and further that the nature of schemes operated
by the petitioner required detailed examination, this argument would hold
no water, inasmuch as, the show cause notice itself contains the relevant
facts, allegations and reasons sought on why the tax is not to be levied.
With regard to another aspect i.e. repeated adjournments from the year
2017 onwards, which the respondents maintained has contributed to the
long delay, this argument also is of no assistance, in view of the fact that
Section 33A of the Finance Act, 1994, has provided that during assessment
proceedings, no adjournment shall be granted to a party more than three
times. As such, the letters in question dated 07.11.2017, 21.02.2018,
04.06.2018, 14.06.2018, 26.06.2025, 10.03.2025 and 14.05.2025, which
the respondents assert have caused the delay are of no consequence, in
Page 24 of 27
2026:MLHC:961-DB
view of Section 33A of the Finance Act, 1994, which is reproduced
hereinbelow:
“33A. (1) The adjudicating authority shall, in any proceeding
under this Chapter or any other provision of this Act, give an
opportunity of being heard to a party in a proceeding, if the
party so desires.
(2) The adjudicating authority may, if sufficient cause is
shown, at any stage of proceeding referred to in sub-section
(1), grant time, from time to time, to the parties or any of them
and adjourn the hearing for reasons to be recorded in writing:
Provided that no such adjournment shall be granted more
than three times to a party during the proceeding.”
27. The respondents were therefore duty bound to complete the
adjudication as expeditiously as possible, and cannot regard the
representations made by the petitioner to be a restraint or a bar under law,
or to conclude the adjudication in a timely manner. The respondents
therefore from the facts and materials provided, have failed to provide any
justifiable cause or reason, that could have prevented them from framing
the assessment in the prescribed timeline. The impugned order dated
12.03.2025, therefore being passed after an undue and unexplained delay of
nearly 8.5 years, in the considered view of this Court, is violative of
Page 25 of 27
2026:MLHC:961-DB
Section 73(4B)(b) of the Finance Act, 1994, and is held to be arbitrary and
bad in law.
28. Though, other substantive challenges with regard to jurisdiction,
whether the petitioner qualifies as ‘Government’ under Section 66D(a) and
whether salary deductions for the scheme would constitute ‘consideration’
have been raised, as also the issue whether the respondents can extend
limitation period by alleging willful suppression is sustainable, in the
absence of any material facts to prove a deliberate act of evasion, the
finding on the unexplained 8(eight) year delay, would not require this
Court to delve into these other questions.
29. The only other aspect that deserves consideration is whether the
presence of alternative remedy would render the instant writ application not
maintainable, as has been contended by the respondents. No doubt,
constitutional courts in such matters, wherein, statutory appeal has been
provided, impose a self-restraint in exercising powers under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. However, in the present case, in the issue decided
that is ‘delay’, the basic question raised was the purport of Section 73(4B),
and its interpretation, when placed alongside the facts, which made the
question basically a question of law. The impugned order therefore apart
from being arbitrary, also offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Page 26 of 27
2026:MLHC:961-DB
30. Accordingly, for the reasons aforementioned the procedural
challenge to delay being the most compelling reason, the impugned order
dated 12.03.2025, on this ground alone, is hereby set aside and quashed.
31. Writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above, without
deliberating on the other issues and is disposed of.
(B. Bhattacharjee) (H.S. Thangkhiew)
Judge Judge
Meghalaya
01.09.2026
“D.Thabah-PS”
Signature Not Verified
Page 27 of 27
Digitally signed by DARIHUN
THABAH
Date: 2026.09.01 16:48:33 IST