9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 639X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se that the petitioner, a PWD Electrical contractor was issued with a summons dated 14/06/2011, calling him for certain details. Being unaware of the sales tax liability for the works undertaken by him, no such explanation was offered by the petitioner. During the period between 2009-10 to 20113-14, petitioner had carried out work of erection, commissioning and installation of electrification works of PWD Department for an amount of Rs. 1,37,21,579/-. The 3rd respondent issued a demand to the petitioner under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 assessing on the petitioner service tax payable at Rs. 4,87,743/-. Petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 11/06/2014 as Ext.P1. It is stated that though the petitioner did not receive Ext ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to take further steps against the petitioner during the pendency of the appeal and hence the petitioner has sought for the above reliefs. 3. Counter affidavit is field on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. It is stated that the writ petition is not maintainable since the petitioner had an alternate remedy of filing an appeal with the appellate authority within the time limit, instead, he has preferred the appeal after a lapse of one year which is beyond the condonable time as per Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. It is stated that the petitioner appeared before the 3rd respondent in response to the summons. But, he did not produce the balance sheet and profit and loss account. Whereas he has provided only a copy of the bank statement. On r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... personal hearing was granted on 17/07/2014. He was also given extension of time to submit further reply which he availed off and filed Ext.P2. Thereafter, the order had been passed. Perusal of Ext.P2 would show that the petitioner had sought for a personal hearing in the matter. Ext.P4 is the order passed on 31/12/2014 wherein it is stated that personal hearing was granted to the petitioner on 16/07/2014 but he turned up on 17/07/2014. It is further stated that the reply of the petitioner is dated 06/09/2014 wherein he made a claim that he is entitled for exemption from payment of service tax on account of notification No.25/2012 dated 20/06/2012. From Ext.P2 order it is not seen that after the objection was filed, no opportunity was given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nciples of natural justice. Materials relied upon by the petitioner indicate that the petitioner has raised certain valid contentions especially in regard to the penalty that had been imposed under Section 76 as well as under Section 78. That apart, he claims benefit under a notification by which according to him, the work for two specified years are to be exempted. The materials placed on record would already indicate that the petitioner was not given an opportunity for hearing. Under normal circumstances, when a request has been made, the authorities are bound to provide a haring to ventilate his grievance. When such an opportunity has not been given, it amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore I am of the v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
