2024 (3) TMI 1232 - HC - Service Tax

Violation of principles of natural justice - non-service of impugned order - no proof of service of order - HELD THAT - On examining the Order-in-Original it follows that the Special Leave Petition filed by the tax authorities against the order of the Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court was dismissed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in 2019 (7) TMI 1975 - SC ORDER . Consequently the judgment of the Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court holds the field as on date. In these circumstances it is just and appropriate that the petitioner be provided with an opportunity to contest the tax demand. It should also be noticed in this regard that there is no proof of service of the impugned order on the petitioner. The impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded for reconsideration by the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner including a personal hearing and thereafter issue a fresh order within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved: Challenge to Order-in-Original dated 30.01.2021 for assessment years 2011-2012 to 2015-2016 u/s 73(4B) of the Finance Act, 1994.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Compliance with time limit under Section 73(4B) of the Finance Act, 1994
The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing, challenged the impugned order on the grounds of non-service and delay. The petitioner contended that the order was issued beyond the prescribed time limit as per Section 73(4B) of the Finance Act, 1994. The petitioner argued that the mandatory timeline for determining service tax liability was not adhered to, as the order was issued on 30.01.2021 after a show cause notice in April 2017. The petitioner emphasized the importance of timely communication of such orders for the interest of justice.

Issue 2: Opportunity to contest tax demand
The respondents, represented by Mr. Ramesh Kutty, highlighted that the impugned assessment issue had been decided in favor of the petitioner by the Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court, with the Supreme Court declining to interfere. It was noted that the Special Leave Petition against the High Court's decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court, thereby upholding the High Court's judgment. As there was no proof of service of the impugned order on the petitioner, the High Court deemed it just and appropriate to provide the petitioner with an opportunity to contest the tax demand.

Judgment:
Upon examination, the High Court quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration by the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent was directed to afford the petitioner a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, and to issue a fresh order within three months from the date of receipt of the High Court's order. The writ petition was disposed of without costs.