2021 (7) TMI 426 - HC - Service Tax

Principles of natural justice - contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner has not submitted their explanation or defence statement and requested time on the ground that some Writ Petitions are pending - HELD THAT - This Court is of the considered opinion that in all other Writ Petitions where the show cause notices are questioned before this Court, this Court passed an order, directing the petitioners to submit explanations and by following the procedures as contemplated under the Act, the final order is to be passed. In view of the said order, the present Writ Petition is also to be remanded back for a fresh consideration by the authorities. The matter is remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration by providing an opportunity to the writ petitioner to submit their explanations, documents and evidences and by affording opportunity of personal hearing and thereafter, pass final orders in the manner known to law - Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging Order-in-Original passed by respondent without granting further time for submission of explanation or defence statement due to pending Writ Petitions.

Analysis:
The Writ Petition challenges the Order-in-Original issued by the respondent on a specific date. The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner had not submitted their explanation or defence statement as they requested additional time due to pending Writ Petitions. Despite this, the respondent proceeded to pass the final order unilaterally, prompting the petitioner to file the present Writ Petition. The court noted that similar Writ Petitions had been filed previously, resulting in a direction to allow the writ petitioners an opportunity to complete the necessary procedures. As a result, the current Writ Petition is also remanded back for fresh consideration by the authorities.

The petitioner's counsel highlighted the pendency of Writ Petitions challenging the authority's demand for Service Tax payment, which led to the petitioner not submitting their defence statement or producing any documents for consideration. The final order was passed without taking into account any points favoring the petitioner. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned Order-in-Original and remanded the matter back to the respondent. The respondent is instructed to provide the petitioner with an opportunity to submit explanations, documents, and evidences, conduct a personal hearing, and then pass final orders following due process.

The court emphasized that in previous cases where show cause notices were contested, petitioners were directed to provide explanations and follow the procedures outlined in the Act before final orders were issued. Therefore, the present Writ Petition is to undergo similar treatment, with the respondent required to reevaluate the matter after the petitioner submits the necessary explanations, documents, and evidences. The petitioner is given eight weeks to comply with these requirements, after which the respondent must conduct a thorough review, including a personal hearing, before making a decision and issuing final orders promptly.

In conclusion, the Writ Petition is allowed with specific directions for the petitioner to submit the required materials within the stipulated timeframe, and for the respondent to conduct a fair and expedited review process. No costs are imposed, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed as a result of the judgment.