The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed a petition filed for setting aside a show cause notice issued to the petitioner whereunder the said show cause the petitioner as to why the service tax including interest and penalties, as mentioned therein, should not be imposed upon the petitioner, for the financial year 2016-17 and held that principle of natural justice has not complied in the instant case in view of non-submission of reply to the SCN and since there is efficacious alternative remedy provided in the Act itself, the writ petition is not maintainable.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner, a proprietorship firm engaged in the business of civil contract work and providing civil construction contractor work to the government offices in the State of Jharkhand and Bihar argued that no service tax was applicable under Sl. No.13 of notification No.25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. In September 2021, the petitioner was informed by the office of respondent No.2, the Additional Commissioner of Central GST & CX, about an ongoing investigation regarding alleged non-registration under service tax and non-payment of service tax for the Financial Year 2016-17. Thereafter, demand-cum-show cause notice was issued on 24.09.2021 which was sent through e-mail to the petitioner. The petitioner immediately contacted through phone and informed that reply to the allegation in the Show Cause Notice. Subsequently, after a long gap, all of a sudden respondent no.2 issued a date of personal hearing fixing the date on 04.01.2023 but the petitioner could not check his e-mail on time and could not attend the hearing after which the impugned order was passed.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that respondent no.2 had erred in not considering the reply and the documents of the petitioner already submitted on 13.09.2021 in reply to the allegation in respect of which the impugned OIO dated 07.02.2023 has been passed. It was further argued that due to noncompliance with principles of natural justice, the instant writ application is maintainable.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ application on the ground of alternative remedy and further submitted that the petitioner was given ample opportunity but he has not filed a reply to the Show Cause Notice or attend the personal hearing intimated to him and the grievances of the petitioner that principle of natural justice is not complied in the instant case is liable to be rejected and since the petitioner is having alternative remedy under the Act, the instant writ application should be dismissed.
Observations of the court:
The court after going through the material placed on record stated that no reply to the “SCN” was ever submitted by the petitioner and even the date of the personal hearing was fixed four times, however, the petitioner did not respond to the same.
It was further stated that the Assessee was given ample opportunity to appear before the adjudicating authority but he failed to do so and the letters of personal hearing were issued to him at the address provided by petitioner-assessee in their GST registration but the letters were returned undelivered and the letters were also sent through the e-mail id which was available to the department but the Assessee did not respond to the said letters and thus the contention of the Assessee that principle of natural justice has not been complied is misplaced and misconceived and without any basis and the contention of non-fulfillment of natural justice is not sustainable in the background of this case.
The court concluded that the contention of the petitioner that the principle of natural justice has not been complied with in the instant case in view of non-submission of reply to the SCN and since there is efficacious alternative remedy provided in the Act itself, the writ petition is not maintainable.
The decision of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Rajeev Kumar vs. The Principal Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax and anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan
Case No.: W.P.(T) No. 1617 of 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kumar Rastogi, Mr. Mahendra Kr. Choudhary and Mr. Parijat Saurav
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. P.A.S Pati and Mr. Ranjana Mukherjee
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
