9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 639X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd would already indicate that the petitioner was not given an opportunity for hearing. Under normal circumstances, when a request has been made, the authorities are bound to provide a haring to ventilate his grievance. When such an opportunity has not been given, it amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore I am of the view that Ext.P4 is liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence a fresh opportunity is to be granted to the petitioner to defend the proceedings pursuant to the show cause notice issued against him. - Decided in favor of petitioner. - W.P.C.No.6314 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 5-7-2016 - A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J FOR THE PETITIONER : ADVS.SRI.P.SREEKUMAR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Petitioner relied upon a Notification No.25/2001 ST dated 20/6/2012 by which the service of erection/installation/commissioning provided to the Government, a local authority, or a governmental authority in relation to a structure predominantly for use as an educational institution or clinical establishments are wholly exempted from levy of service tax. Therefore, according to him, he is not liable to pay service tax for the period 2012-13 and 2013-14 amounting to ₹ 64,84,417/-. However, the 2nd respondent passed Ext.P4 order confirming the penalty of ₹ 4,84,473/-. Petitioner deposited a total amount of ₹ 5,00,015/-. It is stated that though an appeal was provided against the impugned order, petitioner could not file an ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uced any documentary proof to show that the work undertaken by him are mostly PWD works in clinical establishments like leprosy sanatoriums, medical college, District Courts, class rooms etc. which are wholly exempted from levy of service tax as per Ext.P3 notification. The adjudicating authority therefore considered all the submissions made in the written reply and passed the impugned order. 4. One main contention urged by the petitioner is that he was not given an opportunity for personal hearing and there is violation of the principles of natural justice. It is stated that he was not aware of the date of personal hearing on 16/07/2014. However, on 17/07/2014, he received a telephone call and he appeared before the 3rd respondent on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st from the due date till date of payment. The materials placed on record do indicate that the petitioner was not given an opportunity for hearing though a request was made in that regard. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Commissioner of Central Excise v.First Flight Courier Ltd. (S.T.A No.48/2010). The question involved was when a penalty under Section 78 has been levied, whether penalty under Section 76 can be levied. It was held that even if technically the scope of Sections 76 and 78 are different, penalty under Section 78 may not be justified, if penalty under Section 76 had already been imposed. 5. Though the petitioner had preferred an appeal, apparently it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
