2017 (7) TMI 602

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The learned Counsel submits that after the show-cause notice was served upon the petitioner, the petitioner filed an application with the respondent to the effect that the petitioner be heard. Though, it is stated that the notices were issued to the petitioner for hearing of the matter, the said notices were never served upon the petitioner. The learned Counsel submits that the petitioner on 6th January 2014, had intimated the Commissioner of Service Tax-II about its change of address. Even, the statement recorded shows the changed address of the petitioner. Inspite of the fact that on 6th January, 2014 the petitioner had intimated about the change of address, it appears that the notices were issued on the old address. The notices were rece .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... issued to the petitioner on the proper address. The petitioner is interested in protracting the matter. The conduct of the petitioner is improper. The petitioner even did not file its reply to the show-cause notice. All these aspects taken together, would necessarily show that the conduct of the petitioner is not bona fide. 4. We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 5. This Court certainly would be loath to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in case, the party has efficacious alternate remedy. In the present case, the petitioner does have an alternate remedy in the form of a statutory appeal, wherein the petitioner has to comply with the conditi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... erial point of time, the notices were served upon the petitioner. The petitioner did show his bona fide by undertaking to deposit Rs. 25 lakhs within three months without prejudice to his rights. Considering the totality of the circumstances and the fact that the notice of hearing was never served upon the petitioner, we are inclined to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner to represent himself before the Authority. In the light of the above, we pass the following order : - ORDER (i) The impugned order is quashed and set aside. (ii) The petitioner shall deposit Rs. 25 lakhs within a period of three months from today as undertaken by the petitioner. The said deposit is subject to the decision in the proceedings before the Authority .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X