9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 779X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l of the proceedings, which prompts us to interfere with the order-in-original. The rights and equities can be balanced by the petitioner being called upon to meet 50% of the demand in the show cause notice. The petitioner should, therefore, deposit a further sum of ₹ 5 lakhs within a period of four week from today with the Service Tax Commissionerate. - WRIT PETITION NO. 1941 OF 2018 - - - Dated:- 10-4-2018 - S. C. DHARMADHIKARI PRAKASH. D. NAIK, JJ. Mr. Prakash Shah i/b. M/s. PDS Legal for the petitioner. Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly with Ms. Pooja V. Thorat and Mr. Jaivardhan Singh for the respondents. P.C. :- 1. The petitioner is an Indian citizen. He is a businessman and says that he plays international cricket ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urged. Hence, we should not entertain the writ petition. 5. The only contention raised before us is that this petition should be entertained because the order-in-original dated 20th November, 2012 is passed without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. It is, therefore, ex-facie illegal being contrary to the principles of fairness, justice and equity. 6. With the assistance of both sides, we have perused this order. The order proceeds on the footing that the petitioner has been served with a show cause notice. The order proceeds to hold that the intelligence was gathered, inquiry initiated and thereupon, the show cause notice was issued. The show cause notice raised a demand. It is stated that the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that it is dated 20th November, 2012. If the record indicates that the assessee requested for a personal hearing after the second week of July, 2012, then, any dates of hearing scheduled prior to this month and date need not referred. That aspect is wholly irrelevant. The hearing was fixed on 29th, 30th and 31st October, 2011, but the assessee allegedly failing to attend the same has resulted in postponement of the proceedings admittedly. Then, the personal hearing was fixed on 16th, 19th and 20th November, 2012 and what we find is that the order-in-original is dated 20th November, 2012. It means, it was passed immediately on the alleged failure of the assessee to remain present on the three dates in November, 2012. If the assessee was serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2012. It is thus uncalled for and avoidable urgency and expediency in disposal of the proceedings, which prompts us to interfere with the order-in-original. 10. It is in these circumstances, we are unable to agree with Mr. Jetly that this petition should not be entertained. We are mindful of the fact that this is a matter of collection of service tax and when part liability of three lakhs has already been paid by the petitioner. In these circumstances, we are of the view that rights and equities can be balanced by the petitioner being called upon to meet 50% of the demand in the show cause notice. The petitioner should, therefore, deposit a further sum of ₹ 5 lakhs within a period of four week from today with the Service Tax Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
