9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (12) TMI 534 - HC - Service TaxViolation of principles of natural justice - Opportunity of personal hearing not provided to the petitioner - services provided by the petitioner falls within the realm of Reverse Charge Mechanism or not - invocation of extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - Learned advocate Mr. Sahil Rao who personally appeared for the petitioner before the respondent No. 2 made a statement at bar that no opportunity was given to the petitioner and communication was not made to the petitioner by the respondent-Authority for fixing the date of hearing. Thus there are contradictory statements of fact regarding opportunity of hearing provided to the petitioner. This is a classic case of raising disputed question of fact challenging the Order-in-Original. This petition is declined to be entertained only on that ground. The petition is accordingly dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority challenging the impugned Order-in-Original in accordance with law.
Issues:
Opportunity of personal hearing not provided to the petitioner leading to disputed facts challenging the Order-in-Original. Analysis: The petitioner, engaged in the business of providing transportation services, received a notice from the Joint Commissioner regarding non-disclosure of taxable services for certain years. The petitioner raised objections, including the application of the Reverse Charge Mechanism and exemption from tax. Despite requests for adjournment, the respondent passed an order confirming a substantial demand. The Order-in-Original indicated multiple opportunities for personal hearings, but the petitioner claimed no communication was received regarding fixing the date. This conflicting information led to a disputed question of fact. The court dismissed the petition on the grounds of challenging factual elements and directed the petitioner to appeal to the Appellate Authority. The court clarified that the time spent in court should be considered bona fide by the Appellate Authority for any potential delay in filing the appeal.
|
