TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner did not respond to the same. The petitioner referred Annexure-2, 2/1 and 2/2 that he has replied to the notice as such the same should have been considered as reply to SCN but after perusing the said Annexure it appears that the said reply was given at the stage of enquiry. From bare perusal it appears that the same was sent to the Superintendent, Range-1, Div-II, Bokaro; however, those were pre SCN queries made by the Range Officer but, admittedly; the petitioner did not reply to the SCN. It is further evident that the Assessee was given ample opportunity to appear before the adjudicating authority but he failed to do so. The letters of personal hearing were issued to him on the address M/s Rajeev Kumar, Lukiya Petarwar, Bokaro Steel C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he said adjudicating authority in complete violation of principle of natural justice and without considering the reply of the petitioner submitted on 13.09.2021 (Annexure-2 series) and even without taking into account the same, in a quite mechanical and stereo type manner confirmed the demand as made in the alleged Demand-cum-Notice to show cause dated 24.09.2021(Annexure-3). (ii) For quashing and setting aside the demand-cum-notice to show cause dated 24.09.2021 (Annexure-3) issued by the Respondent No. 2, whereby and whereunder the said show cause the petitioner as to why the service tax including interest and penalties, as mentioned therein, should not be imposed upon the petitioner, for the financial year 2016-17. (iii) For a direction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er. The petitioner immediately contacted through phone and informed that reply to the allegation in the Show Cause Notice (hereinafter referred to as SCN ) dated 24.09.2021 was already replied by the petitioner. Subsequently, after a long gap, all of a sudden respondent No. 2 issued date of personal hearing fixing the date on 04.01.2023 but the petitioner could not check his e-mail on time as he was not in habit to check e-mail daily and could not attend the date of hearing. Ultimately the impugned Order in Original (OIO) was passed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No. 2 has erred in not considering the reply and the documents of the petitioner already submitted on 13.09.2021 (Annexure-2, 2/1, 2/2) in reply ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... personal hearing was fixed four times i.e., on 27.10.2022, 25.11.2022, 07.12.2022 and 04.01.2023, however, the petitioner did not respond to the same. The petitioner referred Annexure-2, 2/1 and 2/2 that he has replied to the notice as such the same should have been considered as reply to SCN but after perusing the said Annexure it appears that the said reply was given at the stage of enquiry. From bare perusal it appears that the same was sent to the Superintendent, Range-1, Div-II, Bokaro; however, those were pre SCN queries made by the Range Officer but, admittedly; the petitioner did not reply to the SCN. 6. It is further evident that the Assessee was given ample opportunity to appear before the adjudicating authority but he failed to d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
