9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 725X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sel appearing for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 waives service. 4. The above petition takes an exception to the order dated 23.11.2015 passed by the respondent no.4 thereby inter alia confirming the demand of Rs. 1,86,73,790/- under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 and imposing a penalty at the rate of 1% of the demanded service tax on the said amount which was not paid till the date of payment of service tax subject to 50% of the service tax of the said amount of Rs. 1,86,73,790/-. A further penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was also imposed for failure to pay the aforesaid determined amount. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order passed by the respondent no.4 essentially on the ground that the matt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further pointed out that the impugned order passed by the respondent no.4 is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner have not been given an adequate opportunity of being heard which resulted in grave prejudice to the petitioner. The learned counsel further pointed out that the petitioner is not liable to pay any amount to the respondents on the alleged claim and consequently, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside and the matter be remanded to the respondent no.4 to decide the alleged demand afresh after hearing the petitioner in accordance with law. The petitioner also offers to pay the costs of Rs. 10,000/- to the respondents and Rs. 5000/- to the State Legal Services Authority within fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing the impugned order. It may not be necessary to note that merely because there is an alternate remedy, it does not preclude this Court to exercise jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India when a specific case is made out by the petitioner that the order impugned has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and/or that such order was passed without jurisdiction. 9. In the present case, it is not disputed that the matter was posted for the first time for final hearing on the said two dates namely 21st and 22nd September, 2015. The fact that there was some proceedings pending before the Apex Court filed by the petitioner is also not in dispute. In such circumstances, we find that in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
