2014 (7) TMI 892 - HC - Service Tax

Recovery of service tax arrears - challenge to the Show Cause notice on the ground that they have not received the said notices and they have been despatched to different address and they came to know about the same only in the first week of May, when the 2nd respondent declined to pay the amount for the work done by them. - Held that - it is crystal clear that though the address of the petitioner has been mentioned wrongly in all the correspondence, they have been duly acknowledged by the petitioner with signature and rubber stamp. - Further, it appears that the petitioner themselves have written a letter to the department on 2.5.2014 stating that they are prepared and willing to deposit the necessary service tax within a given time. Therefore, nothing more need to be added. - petitioner directed to remit service tax wi thin 2 months. - writ petition disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to order dated 19.3.2010 and notice of demand dated 27.9.2014 regarding service tax arrears.
2. Allegation of not receiving show cause notice and notice of demand due to wrong address.
3. Contentions regarding acknowledgment of notices by the petitioner.
4. Request for permission to pay service tax and deduction of withheld amount.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the show cause notice and notice of demand, claiming non-receipt due to a wrong address. The petitioner argued that the notices should be set aside as they were not served at the correct address. The respondent contended that all communications, including the show cause notice and subsequent letters, were sent to the address mentioned, which was acknowledged by the petitioner with a rubber stamp.

2. The learned Senior Standing Counsel produced the original file, demonstrating that the show cause notice and subsequent communications were indeed sent to the address provided by the petitioner. The acknowledgment of these letters by the petitioner with a rubber stamp was presented as evidence that the petitioner had received the notices despite the wrong address. The respondent argued that the petitioner's claim of non-receipt was unfounded based on the acknowledgments.

3. The court examined the evidence presented and noted that all correspondence, despite the incorrect address, had been acknowledged by the petitioner. Additionally, the petitioner had written a letter expressing willingness to deposit the service tax. The court directed the petitioner to remit the service tax for the specified period within two months, allowing the respondent to address the withholding of the amount by the 2nd respondent.

4. The petitioner's request to pay the service tax and deduct the withheld amount was considered, with the court directing the petitioner to remit the service tax within a specified timeframe. The court left it to the respondent to address the matter of deduction with the Neyveli Lignite Corporation. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, with no costs imposed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.