2013 (6) TMI 318 - HC - Service Tax

Benefit of abatement of 67% denied - Service tax demanded under the category of commercial or industrial construction services and construction of residential complex services - writ petition against the order of the learned Single Judge 2013 (3) TMI 294 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - Held that - it is evident that no one appeared for the appellant on the date of hearing and the authority has proceeded with the matter and passed the order, that too without giving sufficient reasons regarding pre-deposit of 50% for hearing the appeal on merits. Since the appellant is making grievance about non compliance of the principle of natural justice, we are of the view that the writ appeal may be disposed of by fixing the date of hearing of the representative of appellant on 26.4.2013 and on the said date, the concerned respondent is directed to hear the representative of the appellant and pass orders on merits.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of pre-deposit for hearing appeal on merits without opportunity of personal hearing.

Analysis:
The writ appeal was filed challenging the order of the learned Single Judge, which required a pre-deposit for hearing the appeal on merits. The appellant contended that no opportunity for personal hearing was provided, and their representative could not appear on the specified date. The appellant requested a fresh date for hearing, ensuring their representative's presence for a fair consideration of the case.

Upon reviewing the order, it was noted that no one appeared for the appellant on the hearing date, and the authority proceeded to pass the order without providing sufficient reasons for the 50% pre-deposit requirement. As the appellant raised concerns about the violation of natural justice principles, the court decided to dispose of the writ appeal by scheduling a new hearing date for the appellant's representative on 26.4.2013. The concerned respondent was directed to hear the appellant's representative on that date and make a decision on the merits. If the appellant's representative failed to appear, the authority could issue fresh orders based on the merits.

Consequently, the High Court set aside the Single Judge's order and disposed of the writ appeal with the aforementioned directions. No costs were imposed, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed.