2016 (3) TMI 628 - HC - Service Tax

Whether show cause notice issued is erroneous or not - Matter decided without bothering for petitioner s explanation as he has not given any explanation of show cause notice - Held that - the impugned notice is only a show case notice and it is not an order passed by the first respondent. Without filing their explanation and producing the necessary documents to substantiate their case, the first respondent will not be in a position to decide the matter in accordance with law. When the first respondent has stated that the petitioner is liable for service tax, it is for the petitioner to explain their contention by producing all the records before the first respondent stating that they are not liable for payment of service tax. The petitioner can be given a reasonable time for filing their explanation to the show cause notice raising all their objections and also all the documents to substantiate their contention. Therefore, the petitioner is at liberty to file their objections to the show cause notice issued by the first respondent. - writ petition dismissed - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to show cause notice for service tax liability.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged a show cause notice dated 15.10.2015, claiming to be a service receiver, not a provider, thus not liable for service tax. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the petitioner argued against the jurisdiction of the notice. The respondents countered, citing Notification No.30/2012-ST, making the service recipient liable for service tax. The court noted the petitioner's failure to respond to the notice, emphasizing the need for an explanation and supporting documents for a fair decision. The court granted the petitioner four weeks to provide objections and evidence, directing the respondent to consider them and decide the matter fairly. Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, stating it lacked merit and imposed no costs.

This judgment revolves around the challenge to a show cause notice regarding service tax liability. The petitioner contended being a service receiver, not a provider, and questioned the jurisdiction of the notice based on a Supreme Court precedent. The respondents relied on a notification making the service recipient liable for service tax. The court highlighted the petitioner's non-response to the notice, stressing the importance of providing explanations and supporting documents for a fair decision. Consequently, the court granted the petitioner four weeks to submit objections and evidence, instructing the respondent to consider them fairly. Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, finding it lacking in merit and imposing no costs.