2017 (4) TMI 697 - HC - Service Tax

Principles of natural justice - the assessee did not reply to the notice nor did he appear for personal hearing fixed - Held that - this Court should not interfere with Ext. P2 order especially on account of the fact that the period for filing the appeal has already expired. That apart, the contention regarding violation of principles of natural justice is belied on the basis of the documents now made available - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Violation of principles of natural justice in passing order, non-submission of ST-3 returns, non-remittance of service tax, adjustment of payments made by petitioner.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged Ext. P2 order, alleging a violation of natural justice principles as he did not reply to the notice or attend the personal hearings. The order was taken ex parte, and although appealable, no appeal was filed within the stipulated period. The petitioner argued that the Court should intervene due to the alleged violation. Additionally, the petitioner claimed to have remitted an amount but it was not credited in the assessment order.

2. Respondents filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner's services fell under taxable service as a man power recruitment or supply agency. It was highlighted that the petitioner did not submit ST-3 returns or remit the admitted service tax for the period between 2007 to 2010. Some payments were made before the order was issued, but no interest or penalty for late payment was deposited.

3. Respondents produced evidence to counter the petitioner's claim of natural justice violation. Notices were sent to the petitioner's registered address for hearing dates, and acknowledgment cards were provided to disprove the alleged violation.

4. The judge concluded that the Court should not interfere with Ext. P2 order due to the expired appeal period and the availability of documents contradicting the claim of natural justice violation.

5. The petitioner's counsel argued that the payments made were not adjusted towards the service tax payable. The judge clarified that any payments made by the petitioner before the order should be adjusted, and only the remaining balance should be recovered.

6. The judgment closed the writ petition with the observation regarding the adjustment of payments made by the petitioner towards the service tax liability.