2024 (7) TMI 1301 - HC - GST

Violation of principles of natural justice - non-receipt of SCN - HELD THAT - Whilst the respondent asserts that the impugned SCN has been delivered the petitioner disputes the same. It is not considered apposite to conduct an inquiry in regard to this question in these proceedings. This is because it is not disputed that the petitioner had repeatedly mentioned that it had not received the copy of the impugned SCN and in any event had claimed that the same is not traceable. As is evident from the above the petitioner had requested for a copy of the impugned SCN and certain other communications on at least three occasions. There are no reason as to why the respondent could not forward a copy of the impugned SCN without prejudice to their stand that the impugned SCN was served to the petitioner earlier. It is considered apposite to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for consideration afresh. The respondent shall provide the copy of the impugned SCN and the other communications if any as sought by the petitioner in its e-mail dated 15.12.2020 within a period of two weeks from date - petition disposed off by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Impugning an Order-in-Original confirming service tax demand and penalties.
2. Allegation of violation of principles of natural justice due to non-receipt of Show Cause Notice (SCN).
3. Dispute over the delivery of the impugned SCN.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged an Order-in-Original confirming a substantial service tax demand and penalties. The impugned order upheld a demand of Rs. 20,74,77,321 for service tax and Rs. 10,49,42,030 for inadmissible Cenvat Credit, along with corresponding penalties. The petitioner contested the order, alleging non-receipt of the Show Cause Notice (SCN) and a violation of natural justice principles.

2. The petitioner claimed it did not receive the SCN dated 26.11.2019, hampering its ability to respond adequately. Despite the respondent's assertion of sending notices via speed post to the correct address, the petitioner, on multiple occasions, requested a copy of the SCN, emphasizing non-receipt. The petitioner's representative made requests on various dates, highlighting the lack of cooperation from their erstwhile counsel in tracing the notices.

3. The dispute over the delivery of the impugned SCN persisted, with the petitioner consistently asserting non-receipt. Despite the respondent's contention of delivering the SCN, the court refrained from investigating this issue further. Given the petitioner's repeated claims of non-receipt and the requests for the SCN, the court deemed it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter for fresh consideration. The respondent was directed to provide the requested documents within two weeks, and the petitioner instructed to respond to the SCN promptly for a new adjudication.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the core issues raised by the petitioner, the responses from both parties, and the court's decision to ensure procedural fairness and adherence to natural justice principles.