2019 (4) TMI 247 - HC - Service Tax

Principles of Natural justice - denial of cross-examination of the persons - Clearing and forwarding agency, custom house agent and steamer agency services - Held that - Indisputably, the statements of the petitioner No.2-the Managing Director of petitioner No.1 company were recorded by the respondent Nos.3 and 4. Petitioner No.2 cannot seek for cross examination of himself. Similarly respondent No.4 is the Superintendent, who is the adjudicating authority, has discharged the statutory functions, exercising the powers vested under the provisions of the Act. No cross-examination of any witnesses whose statements are recorded by the adjudicating authority is sought in the present proceedings, petitioner No.2 is requesting to cross-examine himself and the adjudicating authority which is inappropriate and cannot be acceded to - the proceedings are restored to the file of the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax to provide an opportunity to file reply/objections and to adduce evidence, if any, to the petitioners - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to letter dated 1.4.2016 and arrest of 2nd petitioner
2. Challenge to show cause notice dated 19.04.2017
3. Denial of permission for cross-examination of respondent No.4 and petitioner No.2

Analysis:

Issue 1: Challenge to letter dated 1.4.2016 and arrest of 2nd petitioner
The petitioners, a private limited company and its Managing Director, challenged a letter demanding service tax for the period Oct 2012 to Sep 2014 and the arrest of the Managing Director. The petitioners contended that they had discharged their service tax liability but were accused of evasion. The Managing Director was allegedly coerced into signing a statement admitting tax evasion, leading to his arrest. The High Court observed the circumstances and directed the matter back to the Commissioner for further examination, allowing the petitioners to present evidence.

Issue 2: Challenge to show cause notice dated 19.04.2017
The petitioners received a show cause notice in 2017 questioning the services rendered by the company and seeking recovery of amounts with interest and penalties. The petitioners requested permission to cross-examine respondent No.4 and the Managing Director to clarify the context of statements. The denial of this request was contested, citing precedents allowing cross-examination to test the veracity of statements. The Court emphasized the importance of natural justice and directed the Commissioner to consider any evidence presented by the petitioners before making a decision.

Issue 3: Denial of permission for cross-examination of respondent No.4 and petitioner No.2
The petitioners' plea for cross-examination of respondent No.4 and the Managing Director was denied by the revenue, arguing that the Managing Director cannot seek cross-examination of himself. The Court noted that while cross-examination of oneself is inappropriate, the petitioners should be given the opportunity to present evidence to support their claims. The Court emphasized the need to consider all evidence before reaching a decision and directed the Commissioner to allow the petitioners to file objections and adduce evidence within a specified timeframe for a fair adjudication process.

In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the writ petitions, providing the petitioners with the opportunity to present evidence and objections before the Commissioner for a thorough examination of the issues raised, emphasizing the importance of a fair and just adjudication process.