M/S. AKASH ROOFING Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a proprietary concern under the sole ownership of Smt Sheethal K B, is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of profile roofing sheets. The petitioner has filed this writ petition to declare the provisions of Sec. 174(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 as ultra vires, or, in alternate, to be read down so as to make it intra vires the Constitution of India as amended by the Constitution (101st Amendment) Act 2016. The petitioner has also prayed for declaring the Ext.P3 order issued by the 4th respondent as ultra vires the Constitution of India and for quashing Ext.P1 show cause notice issued by the 3rd respondent. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the Ext.P3 order issued by the 4th respondent whereby the demand of Rs.1,21,88,900.00 has been confirmed as payable by the assessee on the value of excisable goods manufactured and cleared by the petitioner for home consumption from their factory during the period 2014-15 to 2017-18 under the provisions of Sec. 11A(10) of the Central Excise Act 1944. Interest has been levied on the aforesaid demand under the provision of Sec. 11AA of the Central Excise Act 1944. 100% penalty of the assessed excise duty of Rs.1,21,88,900.00 has been imposed on the petitioner in terms of Sec. 11AC(1)(c) of the Central Excise Act 1944, besides imposing a penalty of Rs.5,000.00 under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules 2002.

(2.) On the basis of specific intelligence gathered by the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI), (formerly known as Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence), Kochi Zonal Unit, the investigation was initiated against the petitioner/assessee for evasion of Central Excise duty through clandestine removal of excisable manufactured goods by not taking Central Excise registration. Details were called from the petitioner for verification. The petitioner could submit only the extract of the purchase ledger and the sale ledger. The petitioner did not submit the complete details of inputs procured indigenously by import or the details of the goods cleared. The statement of the owner, Smt Sheethal K B, of the Firm was recorded on 2/8/2016 and 12/9/2018 under summons proceedings.

(3.) The petitioner had approached this Court earlier by filing W.P.(C) No.34242/2019 challenging the Ext.P1 show cause notice. However, the said writ petition came to be dismissed vide order dtd. 13/12/2019, which would read as follows: