TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India notwithstanding availability of alternative remedy. The personal hearing was in connection with the show cause notice issued to the petitioner on 19.12.2016. Three dates of personal hearings were mentioned and it was stated in paragraph 3 that petitioner could appear on any one of the dates mentioned either in person or through counsel. Beyond the three dates mentioned above, no further extension of time would be given. The 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, 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 addition, respondent No.1 imposed penalties of Rs.1,46,39,366.00 and Rs.24,66,252.00 for alleged various contraventions under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 5. It may be mentioned that prior to passing of the aforesaid order show cause notice dated 19.12.2016 was issued by respondent No.1 to which petitioner filed reply. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the notice dated 17.02.2017 issued by o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ates 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, learned counsel for the respondents, has referred to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents and submits that as per record, petitioner failed to appear on the second date i.e., on 28.02.2017, whereafter the case was decided ex parte based on the written reply of the petitioner. The date, 03.03.2017, was erroneously mentioned due to a typographical error. That apart he has also referred to a circular dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioning 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. Intimation of Personal Hearing Reg. Ref: Show cause Notice Sl.No.64/2015-ADC (OR No.01/2017 Adjn-ST(JC) dt. 19.12.2016 * * * * Please refer to the Show Cause Notice cited above. 2. In this regard, I am directed by the Joint Commissioner of Service Tax, Service Tax Commissionerate, Hyderabad to inform you that the Personal Hearing in the above case has been fixed at 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 28.02.2017 without waiting for the petitioner to avail personal hearing on 03.03.2017 and proceeding ex parte on 28.02.2017 has vitiated the impugned order-in-original. 13. Considering the above, we set aside the order dated 28.02.2017. It is open to the respondents to pass fresh order(s) in accordance with law. Needless to say, before passing fre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
