ROOTS EDUCATION PVT LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAXGST DELHI EAST ORS.

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 28; GST statutory provision - Section 28(9); GST statutory provision - Section 65; GST statutory provision - Section 65(105); GST statutory provision - Section 73; GST statutory provision - Section 73(1); GST statutory provision - Section 73(10); GST statutory provision - Section 73(9); GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 174(2)

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: demands of Service Tax , interest and penalty emanating from five Show Cause Notices 3 dated 17.04.2013, 07.05.2014, 20.04.2015, 10.05.2016 and 19.03.2018 issued to the Petitioner for the period s 2007-08 to 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16 to June Operative disposition: Resultantly, the present petition is allowed and the impugned OIA dated 31.01.2025, OIO dated 27.06.2024 and SCNs dated 17.04.2013, 07.05.2014, 20.04.2015, 10.05.2016 and 19.03.2018 , are quashed and set
• Which factual, statutory and procedural conditions controlled the requested relief?
• How did the forum apply the governing provisions to the evidence and procedural history recorded in this case?

Material facts and procedural background

fifth SCN d ated 19.03.2018 was also premised upon identical issues to the previous SCNs. (f). The delayed adjudication is wholly attributable to the department. (g). The impugned Orders and SCNs are in the teeth of the judgment passed by this Court in Vos Technologies India (P) Ltd. v. Director General 5, National Building Construction Co. Ltd. v. Union of India 6 and Commissioner of GST and Central Excise and Another vs. M/s Shree Baba Exports7. 3. We propose to examine the present petition on the touchstone of the recent judgment of this Court in Vos Technologies (P) Lt d. (supra) having formed the vanguard of the attack on the SCNs. 4. At this juncture, it will be apposite to advert to the salient facts leading up to the institution of the present petition.

BRIEF FACTS: 5. The Petitioner, being engaged in the business of impart ing coaching, was registered with the Service Tax Department for providing taxable services such as “Commercial Coaching or Training Service” and “Franchisee Service” falling under Section 65 and Section 65(105) respectively of the Finance Act. 6. It appears that based on information gathered regarding the Petitioner allegedly not discharging its service tax liabilit y, the Respondent issued an SCN dated 17.04.2013 for the period of 2007 - 08 to 2011 -12, proposing to impose a demand of INR 85,16,334/ - along with penalties on the ground that the Petitioner was not paying

10. Vide a common OIO dated 27.06.2024 , the Additional Commissioner, CGST, Delhi (East) , summarily dismissed the contentions of the Petitioner on the issue of delayed adjudication and confirmed the demands proposed in the SCNs. 11. Being a ggrieved by OIO dated 27.06.2024 , the Petitioner preferred five (5) appeals. On 31.01.2025, vide a common Order, the Additional Commissioner, CGST, Delhi (East) confirmed all demands imposed against the Petitioner. Hence the present Petition.

14. The Petitioner herein raised the issue of delayed adjudication before the Ld. Appellate Authority . The same came to be rejected in the impugned OIA in the following manner: “7.1 The appellant has also raised the issue of non -sustainability of original order on the grounds of delayed adjudication. In their additional written submission filed on 20.11.2024, the appellant argued that the first show cause notice was issued in 2013 an d adjudication was completed in 2024 with no actual reasons known to the appellant and argued that the whole adjudication process fails to stand before the legal provisions and also relied upon a few case laws in their support. I understand the concern of the appellant but it must be appreciated that delay is caused due to more extensive examination by keeping in mind the nuanced nature of tax compliance and adjudication process. I firmly opine that adherence to protect the larger public interest, the depar tment is bound to ensure for the expeditious and timely culmination of proceedings especially when in this case the circumstances and facts of the case clearly demonstrate that there was no litigation pending on any procedural aspect concerning the subject matter. I, however, refrain from quashing the matter on the ground of delay as during the intervening period, the Corona related guidelines leading to complete lockdown were at place and further the

suomoto cognizance of the problems arising on account of the epidemic by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for not considering a certain period for reckoning the limitation period. Besides , at the given point of time, there was no rigidity or inflexibility under any given provision of the Finance Act, 1994 stipulating any time limit for completion of adjudication proceedings. I have also carefully gone through the Section 73(4B) of the Finance Act, 1994 which is reproduced as under: Section 73 -Recovery of service tax not levied or paid or short - levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded (4B) The Central Excise Officer shall determine the amount of service tax due under sub-section (2)- within six months from the date of notice where it is possible to do so, in respect of cases falling under sub-section (1); 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)]

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

The judgment does not separately label this side’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

Revenue / respondent submissions

The judgment does not separately label the respondent’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

prove that it was either impracticable to proceed or it was constricted by factors beyond its control which prevented it from moving with reasonable expedition. This principle would apply equally to cases falling either under the Customs Act, the 1994 Act or the CGST Act. 86. When we revert to the facts that obtain in this batch, we find that the respondents have clearly failed to establish the existence of an insurmountable constraint which operated and which could be acknowledged in law as impeding their power to conclude pe nding adjudications. In fact, and to the contrary, the frequent placement of matters in the call book, the retrieval of matters therefrom and transfer all over again not only defies logic it is also demonstrative of due application of mind quite apart from the said procedure having been found by us to be contrary to the procedure contemplated by Section 28.

Operative decision and relief

demands of Service Tax , interest and penalty emanating from five Show Cause Notices 3 dated 17.04.2013, 07.05.2014, 20.04.2015, 10.05.2016 and 19.03.2018 issued to the Petitioner for the period s 2007-08 to 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16 to June 2017. 2. The Petitioner seeks quashing of the OIA, OIO and the SCNs, primarily on the ground of inordinate and unexplained delay in their adjudication, contending, inter alia, that: (a). The impugned OIA, OIO and SCNs are liable to be quashed forbeing constitutionally untenable and against the Principles of Natural Justice. (b). The inordinate delay in adjudication deprived the Petitioner of a fair opportunity to defend its case. (c). Although the SCNs were issued between the years 2013 to 2018 and replies were filed at the relevant time , the final adjudication was kept pending for several years, ranging from seven to twelve years. (d). The Respondents have violated the mandate of Section 73(4B) of the Finance Act4, 1994 which provides a specific timeframe for adjudication i.e., six months or one year from the issuance of the SCN. (e). In respect of the first four SCNs dated 17.04.2013, 07.05.2014, 20.04.2015 and 10.05.2016, a personal hearing was held on 27.12.2016. Despite that, no final order was passed and the adjudication was kept pending for further eight (8) years. The

Act, 1962, the Finance Act, 1994, the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 and the Central Excise Act, 1944). 16. After a detailed analysis of the relevant provisions and previous judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and High Courts, this Court, in Vos Technologies (P) Ltd. (supra), while highlighting the fact that the authorities are legally obligated to conclude the adjudication with due expedition, held tha t, an inordinate and unexplained delay on behalf of the authorities to act within a reasonable period would constitute sufficient ground s to quash the proceedings. The relevant portions of the judgment are reproduced hereinbelow: “……. 2. The principal ground of attack is the inordinate delay in the finalisation of the adjudication proceedings with the writ petitioners contending that the failure on the part of the respondents to conclude adjudication within a reasonable period of time and inordinately delaying the same for decades together would constitute a suf ficient ground to annul those proceedings.

They would contend that the principles of a „reasonable period‟ which courts have propounded in connection with an adjudicatory function conferred upon an authority would apply and the impugned SCNs‟ and orders ar e liable to be quashed on this short score alone. ***** 18. This provision flows along lines similar to those appearing in the Customs Act and creates two separate streams dependent on whether the allegation be plainly of short -levy, non -levy or erroneous refund as contrasted with cases where that may have occurred by reason of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. However, and of significance is sub -section (4-B), and which continues to employ the phrase “where it is possible to do so” as opposed to the amendments which came to be made in Section 28 of the Customs Act. ***** 20.

on 27.12.2016, and subsequent thereto, a clarificatory written response was also submitted by the Petitioner on 30.12.2016. In spite of that, no final order was passed by the Respondent, and the adjudicatory process remained in limbo for a further 7.5 years . There appears no justification for the same. 22. As far as the reliance by the Ld. Appellate Authority upon the decisions of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Commissioner, GST and Central Excise Commissionerate- II and Ors. v. M/s Swati Menthol10 and CCE v. Bhagsons Paint Industry (India) 11 are concerned, this Court has already considered them in Vos Technologies (P) Ltd.(supra). 23. In view of the discussion above, we have no hesitation in holding that the rationale put forth in Vos Technologies (P) Lt d. (supra), Paras Products (supra) and M/s Shyam Indus Power Solutions (P) Ltd . (supra), would apply squarely to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 24. Resultantly, the present petition is allowed and the impugned OIA dated 31.01.2025, OIO dated 27.06.2024 and SCNs dated 17.04.2013, 07.05.2014, 20.04.2015, 10.05.2016 and 19.03.2018 , are quashed and set aside. 25. The present petition and all pending applications are disposed of in the above terms.

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with ROOTS EDUCATION PVT LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAXGST DELHI EAST ORS. concerns issue and context: demands of service tax , interest and penalty emanating from five show cause notices 3 dated 17.04.2013, 07.05.2014, 20.04.2015, 10.05.2016 and 19.03.2018 issued to the petitioner for the period s 2007-08 to 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16 to june operative disposition: resultantly, the present petition is allowed and the impugned oia dated 31.01.2025, oio dated 27.06.2024 and scns dated 17.04.2013, 07.05.2014, 20.04.2015, 10.05.2016 and 19.03.2018 , are quashed and set The proposition cannot be separated from the judgment’s facts, the governing statutory version, the forum’s jurisdiction, and the exact relief recorded in W.P.(C) No. 4084/2025.

For working-paper purposes, the decision should be cited only after matching the material facts and reading the passages under the judgment-grounded record above. The editorial outcome label “Allowed / set aside” is a navigation aid; it does not replace the operative order or explain every issue in a multi-issue case.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant when a file raises the same central question identified in the source headnote: Issue and context: demands of Service Tax , interest and penalty emanating from five Show Cause Notices 3 dated 17.04.2013, 07.05.2014, 20.04.2015, 10.05.2016 and 19.03.2018 issued to the Petitioner for the period s 2007-08 to 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16 to June Operative disposition: Resultantly, the present petition is allowed and the impugned OIA dated 31.01.2025, OIO dated 27.06.2024 and SCNs dated 17.04.2013, 07.05.2014, 20.04.2015, 10.05.2016 and 19.03.2018 , are quashed and set Its practical value lies in the way the Delhi High Court connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 28; GST statutory provision - Section 28(9); GST statutory provision - Section 65; GST statutory provision - Section 65(105); GST statutory provision - Section 73; GST statutory provision - Section 73(1); GST statutory provision - Section 73(10); GST statutory provision - Section 73(9); GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 174(2)—to the procedural posture and evidence before it.

The authority level is High Court. That affects persuasive or binding weight, but authority level alone is never enough. Territorial jurisdiction, statutory period, the identity of the challenged order, and later appellate treatment must all be checked before the case is used in advice, a submission, or litigation strategy.

Practitioner action points

• Begin with the complete judgment and mark the paragraphs supporting the exact proposition relied upon.
• Match the statutory version of GST statutory provision - Section 28; GST statutory provision - Section 28(9); GST statutory provision - Section 65; GST statutory provision - Section 65(105); GST statutory provision - Section 73; GST statutory provision - Section 73(1); GST statutory provision - Section 73(10); GST statutory provision - Section 73(9); GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 174(2) and the decision date 2025-04-22; do not assume the current text is identical.
• Compare the notice, assessment, appeal or other procedural sequence with the chronology recorded in this case.
• Verify the stated later-history status and any review, appeal, SLP, curative or rectification proceedings before citation.
• Record why the client’s evidence is materially similar, and also record any fact capable of distinguishing the result.

Does this case match your facts?

Detailed reliance and distinction analysis

Identity check. Confirm that the cited cause title is ROOTS EDUCATION PVT LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAXGST DELHI EAST ORS., the proceeding is W.P.(C) No. 4084/2025, and the decision is dated 2025-04-22. These fields are taken from the judgment record and should appear exactly in the citation note.

Bench check. The judgment identifies the coram as Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subramonium Prasad; Hon'ble Mr. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar. A later order by another bench, a larger bench, or a higher forum may alter the weight or interpretation of the proposition.

Provision check. The source associates the dispute with GST statutory provision - Section 28; GST statutory provision - Section 28(9); GST statutory provision - Section 65; GST statutory provision - Section 65(105); GST statutory provision - Section 73; GST statutory provision - Section 73(1); GST statutory provision - Section 73(10); GST statutory provision - Section 73(9); GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 174(2). The practitioner should place the historical statutory text next to the current text and identify every amendment, proviso, explanation, rule or notification that could change the analysis.

Fact check. The source issue is not a free-standing abstract rule. It arises from the concrete record summarized above. A reliable application note should list the common facts, the different facts, and whether each difference affects jurisdiction, admissibility, limitation, burden, computation or relief.

Remedy check. The recorded result is Allowed / set aside. Where a matter is remanded, set aside, partly allowed, or disposed with directions, the exact operative language is more important than a binary winner/loser label.

History check. The current closure state is REVIEW_APPEAL_SLP_SUBSEQUENT_TREATMENT_CHECK_PENDING. If that state is pending, the page does not assert that no later case exists. It means the check remains open and must be completed at the point of professional reliance.

Section / provision impact

• GST statutory provision - Section 28 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 28(9) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 65 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 65(105) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 73 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 73(1) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 73(10) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 73(9) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 74 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 174(2) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

• M/s Betterbot Tech Services Private Limited v. Union of India and Others — Allahabad High Court · Allowed / set aside
• Sun International Limited v. Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Services Tax and Another — Delhi High Court · Allowed / set aside
• Globe Overseas Pvt. Ltd. through Director Vipin Mittal v. Commissioner of DGST and Others — Delhi High Court · Allowed / set aside
• M/s Padam Kishore and Company through Proprietor Naveen Sachdeva v. Union of India and Others — Delhi High Court · Allowed / set aside

Related Finin2min resources

• Case Law Hub
• Search all 692 judgments
• Explore Demand & Adjudication

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_EXACT_SANITIZED_MIRROR · Repository status: PUBLISH_READY