9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 898X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken up for final disposal. 2.The challenge in this Writ Petition is to an Order-in- Original dated 23.03.2015, passed by the respondent, demanding Service tax and imposing penalty on the petitioner on various grounds. 3.The only ground on which the impugned order has been challenged before this Court by way of this Writ Petition is by contending that there has been violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as the petitioner has not been given adequate opportunity to put forth their case by way of personal hearing. 4.When the case came up for hearing on 10.06.2016, this Court directed the respondent to file counter only with regard to the aspect as to whether the petitioner had been given an effective hearing, as requested by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments. The said request was received by the Superintendent (Adjudication), Service Tax Commissioner-I on 16.04.2015. Once again another request was made by the petitioner on 18.05.2015, for grant of fifteen days extension of time. That representation was received by the Inspector (Adjudication), Service Tax Commissioner-I on 19.05.2015. Within the extended time, the petitioner submitted their reply on 02.06.2015. On receipt of the reply, the respondent by proceedings dated 25.01.2016, fixed the hearing on 04.02.2016. On 04.02.2016, the counsel for the petitioner appeared before the respondent and referred to the reply dated 04.06.2015 and requested further time to make their written submissions as well as the compendium of the case. The sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fitness of things for the Authority to afford an opportunity of personal hearing. The said decision has been rendered with a view to clarify the facts and also in a way to help the Adjudicating Officer to give a proper and just conclusion at the earliest. Therefore, had the respondent afforded an opportunity to the petitioner as sought for in their representation dated 01.03.2016, the petitioner would not have approached this Court. 6. In the light of the above, this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned order, on the ground that it is in violation of principles of natural justice. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
