9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 117 - HC - GSTPrinciples of natural justice - Non-service of notice - demand u/s 73 (1) of Finance Act, 1994 read with Sections 142, 173 and 174 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and the penalty of the same amount under Section 78 of the Act - HELD THAT - Without going into any further details of the dispute, this court is of the opinion that the court's endeavour should be to decide the dispute on merits after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties and opportunity of hearing should not be denied on hyper-technical reasons. As the petitioner is willing to cooperate in the proceedings, it would be in the interest of justice to remand the matter for being decided afresh, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The impugned order dated 08.01.2024, passed by the Principal Commissioner, CGST Central Excise Commissionerate, Lucknow imposing tax liability and penalty on the petitioner is quashed. The writ petition is allowed.
Issues involved: Challenge to the validity of an order confirming service tax demand and penalty, service of notice to the petitioner, opportunity of hearing.
Validity of Order: The petitioner challenged the order confirming service tax demand and penalty under Section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994 read with Sections 142, 173, and 174 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The order imposed penalties under Sections 77(1)(b), 77(1)(c), and 77(1)(d) as well. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without serving any notice on them. The court noted that despite letters sent for verification of service tax liability, the petitioner did not provide the required documents. Service of Notice: The respondent argued that notices were sent to the petitioner via registered speed post but were returned unclaimed. However, the copies of postal receipts were not annexed to support this claim. The court emphasized that the service of notice should be done correctly, and if not claimed by the addressee, it may be deemed sufficient. Yet, the lack of postal receipts raised doubts about the actual service of notice. Opportunity of Hearing: The court opined that disputes should be decided on merits after providing adequate hearing opportunities to the parties. It stressed that hearing opportunities should not be denied on hyper-technical grounds. As the petitioner expressed willingness to cooperate, the court deemed it just to remand the matter for a fresh decision after granting a fair hearing opportunity. The writ petition was allowed, quashing the impugned order and directing the petitioner to appear before the authorities to present their reply and documents for a decision on merits in accordance with the law. This summary provides a detailed overview of the judgment, addressing the issues involved and the court's decision on each aspect of the case.
|
