TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 730X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, is not in any way causing prejudice to them - there is no violation of the principles of natural justice in these cases by not furnishing those documents to the petitioners, as such non furnishing is not causing any prejudice to the petitioners - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner. - W.P.Nos.4336 to 4338 of 2017, WMP Nos.4521 to 4523 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 13-3-2017 - K. Ravichandrabaabu, J. For Petitioner : M/s.Naveena.D For Respondents : Mr.V.Sundareswaran ORDER In all these writ petitions, the respective writ petitioner is aggrieved against the orders in original dated 09.11.2016, wherein and whereby they were called upon to pay service tax of ₹ 42,74,690/-, 45,16,388/-, 42,60,539/-, 13,99,355/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opies of the same, the impugned orders cannot be sustained solely on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. 4.Per contra, Mr.V.Sundaresan, learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that there is no violation of the principles of natural justice as alleged by the petitioners, since the materials collected from the Blue Dart Courier Service and the information contained therein are not contradicting the statement made by the petitioners themselves on 21.09.2015, 08.09.2015, 08.09.2015 and 25.08.2015 respectively as extracted in the show cause notices itself. In other words, it is the contention of the learned counsel that by not furnishing those materials to the petitioners, no prejudice is caus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he category of Supply of Tangible Goods , as claimed by the department. Undoubtedly, the above question involving factual aspect of the issue having been answered by the adjudicating authority against the petitioners by passing a detailed order, has again to be gone into and decided only by the next fact finding authority viz., Appellate Authority, by considering all the material facts and circumstances and also by applying the relevant provision of law. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioners have let their vehicles on hire to the Blue Dart Express Limited. But the petitioners claim that they are co-loaders. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, in the respective statements made by the petitioners, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... along with driver and that no consignee notes are being issued either by the petitioners or by the Blue Dart for the transaction, the letter dated 10.10.2016 of the Blue Dart Express Limited referred to in the impugned orders also indicates that Blue Dart Express Limited has not availed goods transport service from the petitioners. It is further stated in the said letter that the Blue Dart has taken the vehicle on hire and not a transport of goods by road service. Therefore, in my considered view, it appears that the letters obtained from Blue Dart and the recitals contained therein, are in line with the statements made by the respective petitioners and therefore, by not furnishing those details to the petitioners, is not in any way causin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 05.01.2017, wherein it has been observed at paragraph Nos.14 to 16 as follows: 14.This Court has consistently taken the view that as against the show-cause notice or the order in original, filing of writ petition cannot be entertained by way of short-circuiting the procedures, especially when a statutory remedy is available for the petitioner to go before the competent original or appellate authority, more particularly, when the factual aspects of the matter have to, necessarily, be gone into only by those authorities vested with such power under the statute. 15.At this juncture, it is relevant to quote the following decisions, which were followed by this Court in very many cases while deciding the similar issue: 1) M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
