9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 1166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ST and CX Commissionerate, Rourkela is incompetent in view of provision laid in Section 174 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for brevity referred to as "the CGST Act"), the Petitioner approached this Court by way of the writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash Order-in-Original dated 25th February, 2022 passed by said Officer pertaining to financial year 2015-16 raising demand comprising the following: i. Service Tax including Cesses for an amount of Rs.54,05,706/- under Section 73(2) read with proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 73; ii. interest thereon as applicable; iii. penalty of Rs.10,000/- under Section 77(1)(a) for failure to take registration in contravention of Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce provided during 2015- 16". At Para 3.8 of the writ petition, the Petitioner has candidly admitted that the Adjudicating Authority had directed it to appear for personal hearing through video conference on 25th January, 2022. However, the Petitioner did not choose to avail the opportunity of personal hearing. As a consequence of non-cooperation of the petitioner, the Adjudicating Authority had proceedced to confirm the demand of Service Tax as stated in the Show Cause pertaining to financial year 2015-16. 4. It appears from the averments and documents enclosed to the writ petition that the Petitioner did not choose to participate in the proceeding under Section 73. Mr. Chimanka appearing for CGST Authority submitted that the fact of not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve the initiation of proceeding under Section 73 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994. Such a plea being not raised before the Adjudicating Authority even though adequate opportunity was afforded for production of documents as well as personal hearing, can be raised by the petitioner before the appellate authority.
9. The Petitioner after arguing for some time sought for permission to withdraw the writ petition to avail alternative remedy of appeal as is available under Chapter-V of the Finance Act, 1994. This Court, therefore, declines to express its views on merit of the case. However, the Petitioner is at liberty to prefer appeal.
10. With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
