9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1494X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndian Partnership Act, 1932. The respondents are the Union of India and the officers exercising powers under Finance Act, 1994 read with Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Rules framed thereunder. 3. The petitioner is engaged, inter alia, in transportation service of transporting commercial and passenger vehicles and chassis from its customers premises and deliver them at the regional sales offices and other destinations of the customers. The petitioner also engages drivers for this purpose. The services at the relevant time and rendered by the petitioner, falls under the category of "Goods Transport Agency". The petitioner got the service tax registration. The respondents alleged that the services rendered are classifiable under "Support Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (`CESTAT' for brevity). The CESTAT came to the conclusion that there is no merit in the appeals and the appeals deserve to be dismissed. Annexure-G to the petition is the copy of order of CESTAT. 7. Then two Central Excise Appeals bearing No.214/2016 and 215/2016 were filed in this Court. They came to be withdrawn on 9th October 2017 with liberty to file this writ petition. 8. Mr. Shah appearing for the petitioner would submit that the entire service tax liability confirmed in the orders-in-original, has already been deposited. On account of genuine and bona fide reasons and particularly the illness of the partner, this Court should take lenient view of the matter. Since the orders ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unning pages 92 and 93 of the petition paper book. It is in these circumstances it is submitted that once there was no reply to the show cause notices nor any appearance before the authorities, then, this is not a fit case for grant of any relief in this Court's extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Jetly would submit that the petition be dismissed. 11. With the assistance of both the learned advocates we have perused the petition paper book, the affidavit-in-reply and the case law relied upon. We do not think that we should enter into a wider controversy, much less decide any larger issue. Undisputedly the show cause notice styled as first show cause notice was issued. It was duly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... natural justice were complied with. Despite ample opportunities being provided, the petitioner chose not to file a reply nor remain present at the hearing. Pertinently, it found time to remit and make payment of the sum noted above of Rs. 10 lakh. Even if the authority was informed that the petitioner's partner was under treatment from 4th June 2010 till 7th January 2015, a representative could have been deputed to represent the petitioner. That representative could have been requested to file a reply to the show cause notices. 13. It is in these circumstances that the Commissioner (Appeals) found that the grievance of the petitioner has no merit. Pertinently, before the Commissioner (Appeals), the petitioner-appellant did engage a con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er was not present or that no legal or factual submission could be canvassed by him or on its behalf. This is a clear case where the authorities called upon the petitioner to remain present and repeatedly. They also called upon the petitioner to produce documents and file reply to the show cause notices. For both, filing a reply and for making oral arguments, opportunities were given but they have not been availed of. To our mind, therefore, none of these authorities acted perversely or in contravention of the principles of natural justice. Their orders, therefore, cannot be interfered in the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is, devoid of merits and is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
