9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal dated 28.02.2017 passed by the respondent No.1 under Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994. The challenge has been made on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. 3. By the order-in-original dated 28.02.2017 respondent No.1 confirmed the following demand:- i) Rs.7,86,890.00 including education cess and secondary & higher education cess for the period from 2011-12 to 2014-15 in terms of Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994; ii) Rs.4,87,091.00 on account of cenvat credit allegedly availed of irregularly on renting of immovable property during the period from April, 2013 to March, 2015. iii) Rs.5,03,938.00 being cenvat credit irregularly availed of during the period from April, 2013 to March, 2015 etc. 4. In addit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be granted to a party though adjournments should not be granted beyond three times. He has also referred to a Division Bench decision of Gujarat High court in Regent Overseas Pvt. Ltd., v. Union of India (2017) 47 GSTR 233 (Guj) and submits that Gujarat High Court has taken the stand that it is not permissible for the adjudicating authority to issue one consolidated notice fixing three dates of hearing whether such three dates are sought for or not by the party. Since adjudicating authority has given choice of three dates of personal hearing, the adjudicating authority is required to adhere to the schedule of dates and could not have pronounced the order-in-original before exhaustion of all the three dates. 7. Mr. A.Rama Krishna Reddy, lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l recognized exception is violation of the principles of natural justice. If there is violation of the principles of natural justice, the writ court may still entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India notwithstanding availability of alternative remedy. 10. Having noted the above, we may advert to the personal hearing notice dated 17.02.2017. Since respondents have now stated that mentioning of the third date is a typographical error, it would be appropriate to extract the same in its entirety. Notice dated 17.02.2017 reads as under:- "To M/s.Srinivasa Resorts Ltd., 6-3-1187, Grand Kakatiya Hotel, Begumpet, Hyderabad-5000016. Sub: Service Tax - Non payment of Service Tax by M/s.Srinivasa Resorts Ltd. - I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counsel. Beyond the three dates mentioned above, no further extension of time would be given. 12. We have carefully gone through the notice dated 17.02.2017. To our mind stand taken by the respondents that mentioning of the third date of hearing i.e., 03.03.2017 is a typographical error does not appeal to us. It is clear as day light that the intention of the respondent No.1 was to provide personal hearing on either of the three dates. If the respondents had provided three dates with the option to the petitioner to avail any one of the dates for personal hearing, then respondents ought to have waited for the last date so mentioned in the notice dated 17.02.2017 which is 03.03.2017. Abrupt passing of the order-in-original on 28.02.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
