9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 820 - HC - Service TaxNon-service of SCN - petitioner was directly called upon to appear for a personal hearing - SCN time barred in view of the limitation prescribed under Section 73(6)(i)(b) of the Finance Act, 1994 - HELD THAT - The limitation for issuing Show Cause Notice expired during the period when the country was under lock down mode due to out break of Covid-19 Pandemic - Taking note of the unprecedented situation, the Central Government had also issued ordinance namely the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance, 2020. There is no scope for setting aside the impugned order on the ground of limitation. However, since the order has been passed without following the principle of natural justice and without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to reply to the Show Cause Notice No.10/2021 (ST) dated 28.04.202, Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order and remits the case back to the respondent to pass a fresh order on merits in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petition disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Receipt of Show Cause Notice. 2. Limitation period for issuing the Show Cause Notice. 3. Invocation of extended period of limitation. 4. Compliance with principles of natural justice. Summary: Receipt of Show Cause Notice: The petitioner contended that they did not receive the Show Cause Notice No.10/2021 (ST) dated 28.04.2021 and were directly called for a personal hearing. The Court noted this claim but did not make a definitive ruling on it, instead focusing on other issues. Limitation Period for Issuing the Show Cause Notice: The petitioner argued that the demand proposed in the Show Cause Notice was time-barred under Section 73(6)(i)(b) of the Finance Act, 1994. The due dates for filing returns and issuing the Show Cause Notice were detailed, indicating that the notice was issued after the limitation period had expired. Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation: The petitioner asserted that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked as there was no allegation of suppression of facts. They referenced the Supreme Court decision in Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Vs. CCE. The respondent countered that the limitation period was extended due to the Covid-19 pandemic, citing the Supreme Court's orders and relevant government notifications. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice: The Court found that the impugned order was passed without following the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was not given an opportunity to reply to the Show Cause Notice. Therefore, the Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the case back to the respondent to pass a fresh order on merits within six months. Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of with instructions to the respondent to furnish a copy of the Show Cause Notice to the petitioner within 30 days, and for the petitioner to file a reply within 30 days thereafter. The respondent is to pass a final order on merits within six months. Disposition: The writ petition stands disposed of with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
|
