9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 969 - HC - Service TaxConfirmation of demand of service on the basis of earlier period - import of services - reverse charge mechanism - case of petitioner is that the submission of the Petitioner were not appropriately considered by the impugned order dated 29th June, 2018 of the Respondent No.2 - HELD THAT - This grievance of the Petitioner in the facts of the present case is debatable and the same could be considered appropriately by the Appellate Authority under the Act. Thus, there is no reason to entertain that the impugned order dated 29th June, 2018 to the extent it has confirmed the show cause notice dated 9th June, 2017. Validity of SCN - Opportunity of personal hearing not provided - HELD THAT - The Commissioner has admittedly given no personal hearing to the Petitioner before he has confirmed the show cause notice dated 9th April. 2018. Even if, the learned ASG is correct in stating that both the show cause notices are identical. The demand for period may not necessarily be confirmed on the basis of the demand for earlier period being confirmed, as there could be a change in law and/or the fact which the Petitioner would be able to point out at the time of personal hearing, which the Petitioner has specifically asked for. Petition disposed off.
Issues:
1. Challenge to order passed by Commissioner of CGST on service tax liability. 2. Petitioner's contention of breach of natural justice in confirming show cause notices. 3. Availability of alternative remedy of appeal to Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. 4. Consideration of submissions and grievances by the High Court. Issue 1: Challenge to order passed by Commissioner of CGST on service tax liability The High Court was approached under Article 226 challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of CGST confirming the liability to pay service tax on Reverse Charge Mechanism on import of services. The impugned order dated 29th June, 2018 disposed of two show cause notices and confirmed the liability, leading to the Petitioner's challenge. Issue 2: Petitioner's contention of breach of natural justice in confirming show cause notices The Petitioner contended that the order confirming the show cause notices breached the principle of natural justice. The Petitioner's submissions in response to the show cause notices were allegedly not appropriately considered by the impugned order. Additionally, the Petitioner argued that no personal hearing was granted regarding one of the show cause notices, which was deemed as a breach of natural justice. Issue 3: Availability of alternative remedy of appeal to Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal The Additional Solicitor General argued that the Petition should not be entertained as there was an alternative remedy of appeal available to the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal from the impugned order. However, the Petitioner argued that the impugned order confirming the show cause notices was flawed and warranted the High Court's intervention under Article 226. Issue 4: Consideration of submissions and grievances by the High Court The High Court examined the impugned order and found that while one show cause notice did not require a personal hearing, the other notice dated 9th April, 2018 did. The Petitioner had specifically requested a personal hearing for the latter notice, which was not granted. The Court determined that the impugned order confirming the show cause notice dated 9th April, 2018 was bad in law due to the lack of a personal hearing. Consequently, the High Court set aside the order and directed a fresh disposal of the notice with a personal hearing and adherence to principles of natural justice. The Court also allowed the Petitioner to challenge the order confirming the other show cause notice before the Tribunal. In conclusion, the High Court partially allowed the Petition, setting aside the order confirming one show cause notice and directing a fresh disposal, while allowing the Petitioner to challenge the other notice before the Tribunal. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and providing a fair opportunity for personal hearing in such matters.
|
