9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 468X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tutory requirement of service notice for the purpose of fastening liability of service tax on the petitioner. The procedure of service of notice and passing orders as enumerated in the Central Excise Act, 1944 has been made part of the service tax by virtue of Section 83 of the Finance Act. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 30.05.2014 cannot be sustained, and accordingly, the same is set aside giving liberty to the respondents-authorities to pass appropriate orders after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - writ petition allowed - Decided in favor of assessee. - W.P. No. 12350 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 26-6-2015 - G. Chandraiah And Challa Kodanda Ram,JJ. For the Petitioner : Sri T. Vinod Kumar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cause notice dated 10.10.2013 which is mentioned in the impugned order was never delivered to the petitioner, and further, the order dated 30.05.2014 was also not received by the petitioner. The petitioner also pointed out that both in the show cause notice dated 10.10.2013 and in the final order dated 30.05.2014, the address mentioned is M/s.Ventrapati Financial Services, Proprietor of Shri Hari Krishna Kishore Ventrapati, D.No.46-16-4, Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry 533103. On the face of it, the address mentioned in the final show cause notice as well as the final order is entirely different from the address under which the petitioner-firm was registered. The respondents have filed counter affidavit stating that the petitioner is taking un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so bears the address 46-16-4, Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry which is different from the address registered with the Department. Apart from this, in the letters dated 18.07.2013 and 18.09.2013 of the respondents-authorities, which have been filed by the learned Standing Counsel for the Department, the address mentioned is the same as is found in the certificate of registration which is in fact correct address. In other words, it cannot be said that the Department was not aware of the correct address of the petitioner and it is an admitted fact that both the show cause notice and final order were dispatched to the wrong address resulting in violation of the statutory requirement of service notice for the purpose of fastening liability of service t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 83:- Application of certain provisions of Act 1 of 1944: The provisions of the following sections of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), as in force from time to time, shall apply, so far as may be, in relation to service tax as they apply in relation to a duty of excise:- [9A, 9AA, 9B, 9C, 9D, 9E, 11B, 11BB, 11C, 12, 12A, 12B, 12C, 12D, 12E, 14, 15, [31, 32, 32A to 32P (both inclusive),] 33A, 34A, 35EE, 35F, 35FF to 35-O (both inclusive), 35Q, 35R, 36, 36A, 36B, 37A, 37B, 37C, 37D, 38A and 40. From the facts of the present case, it is seen that there is non-compliance of the statutory provisions by the 3rd respondent in passing the order of best judgment assessment on the petitioner apart from violation of principl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
