2017 (5) TMI 1467 - HC - Service Tax

Attachment of bank account - natural justice - without notice to the petitioner, without hearing him and without granting him proper opportunity, the action has been taken and the original order imposing the tax liability dated 31.3.2013 was never served on the petitioner - Held that - petitioner was not aware on what ground tax liability has been imposed and his right to file the appeal is taken away as the limitation for filing the appeal is already over if the order was passed on 31.3.2013 - against the order dated 31.3.2013, the petitioner has a right to file an appeal before the Commissioner, Appeals, and the petitioner can very well raise all these grounds in the appeal by contending that he acquired the knowledge and got a copy of the order - questions with regard to issuance of the notice, its service and allied issues are left open to be considered by the appellate authority - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Recovery of service tax without proper notice and opportunity for hearing.
2. Allegation of tax liability imposition without serving the original order on the petitioner.
3. Challenge against attaching the petitioner's bank account for tax recovery.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the recovery of service tax by the respondents, arguing that it was done without proper notice, hearing, and opportunity. The petitioner claimed that the original order imposing tax liability was not served on them, depriving them of the chance to file an appeal within the limitation period. The writ petition was filed to contest the action of attaching the petitioner's bank account for tax recovery.

2. In response, the respondents filed a counter affidavit stating that the tax liability order was passed after notice to the petitioner, granting them a hearing opportunity. The respondents asserted that the petitioner failed to participate in the proceedings despite being informed.

3. The petitioner's counsel argued that the notice was sent to an incorrect address, leading to actions taken without the petitioner's knowledge. The court acknowledged the conflicting contentions but emphasized the petitioner's right to appeal the order dated 31.3.2013 before the Commissioner, Appeals. The court directed the appellate authority to consider the petitioner's claims regarding the date of receiving the order and calculate the limitation period accordingly.

4. The court refrained from delving into the disputed facts of notice issuance and service in the writ petition. It left these issues for the appellate authority to address. The appellate authority was instructed to review all aspects of the matter and make a decision within 60 days of the appeal filing. The petitioner was granted the liberty to approach the court if unsatisfied after exhausting available remedies post the appellate authority's decision.

5. The petition was disposed of with the petitioner having the liberty to seek further recourse based on the appellate authority's decision.