TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 999X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that after receipt of impugned order, the same was misplaced inadvertently and therefore, he could not take further steps and thus, delay caused in filing present writ petition, does not inspire confidence of this Bench, considering the conduct of the petitioner even after service of the show-cause notice, personal hearing notices and order in original. There are clear latches, defaults on the part of petitioner. Firstly, in not availing alternate efficacious remedy of filing appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and secondly, unexplained delay in approaching this Court. In considered opinion of this Bench, the writ petition is devoid of any merits and no grounds are made out to interfere with the impugned order - Petition dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tively and paid VAT and discharged his tax liability. 4. The petitioner received order in original No. 26/2022-23, dated 20.06.2022 requesting petitioner to provide certain information and documents pertaining to Financial Years 201516,2016-17 and 2017-18 with regard to the difference in taxable value of ST-3 returns when compared with the value of ITR/TDS for 2015-16 and 2016-17. Vide impugned order dated 20.06.2022, the respondent confirmed demand of service tax of Rs. 30,23,823/- for the period 2015-16 and 2016-17 under Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 and also raised demand of interest at applicable rates under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 and further imposed penalty of Rs. 30,23,823/- under Section 78 of the Finance Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t reply to show-cause notice and also could not appear for personal hearing. He further submitted that the impugned order was passed in the absence of petitioner and the petitioner was not extended opportunity of personal hearing in violation of principles of natural justice and thus, the impugned order is vitiated and liable to be set-aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon following judgments: i. Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of S. Parvathy Sankaran, S. Venkatesam v. The Sales Tax Officer (Circle), The Assistant Commissioner (State Tax), Mettur Road Circle, Erode reported in [2021 (21) TMI 62-Madras High Court]. ii. Hon ble Telangana High Court in the case of M/s. Sai Constructions v. The Assistant Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 020 by which show-cause notice was sent to the petitioner and also, the track consignment details from India Post portal in proof of service of personal hearing notices. 10. A perusal of the impugned order, dated 20.06.2022 passed by respondent No. 1 shows that a letter dated 09.12.2020 was sent to the petitioner to provide following information for the Financial year 2015-16,2016-17 and 2017-18 (up to June, 2017). a. Income Tax returns together with Form 26AS. b. FORM No. 3CB (Audit Report U/Sec. 44AB of IT Act, 1961 c. Balance Sheet along with P L Account statement, schedules, in case of firm/company. d. Bank Account Statements/Service Income Ledger. e. Bills/Invoices/Contracts/Agreements entered by you with per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elatedly i.e., about ten (10) months from the date of receipt of the impugned order. 13. The explanation offered by the petitioner that after receipt of impugned order, the same was misplaced inadvertently and therefore, he could not take further steps and thus, delay caused in filing present writ petition, does not inspire confidence of this Bench, considering the conduct of the petitioner even after service of the show-cause notice, personal hearing notices and order in original. There are clear latches, defaults on the part of petitioner. Firstly, in not availing alternate efficacious remedy of filing appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and secondly, unexplained delay in approaching this Court. 14. For the above reasons, in co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
