Telangana High Court
M/S. Img Systems Private Limited vs The Union Of India on 15 September, 2025
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN
Writ Petition No.27648 of 2025
ORDER:
Heard Mr.Chanakya Basa, learned counsel appears
for Mr.Koripel Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel for
the petitioner, Mr.B.Mukherjee, learned counsel appears
for respondent No.1 and Mr.Dominic Fernandes, learned
Senior Standing Counsel for the Central Board of Indirect
Taxes and Customs appears for respondents No.2 and 3.
2. Petitioner is a private limited company engaged in the
business of providing information technology services,
including export of software and technical services, to
clients outside India. It has been saddled with a liability of
Rs.4,90,308/- with applicable interest and penalty, vide
Order-in-Original (OIO) dated 30.09.2023 under Section
73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 (for short, 'the Act').
Petitioner alleges that no show cause notice dated
17.06.2022 was served upon it, as its business was
changed from previous address - 'H.No.1-8-271, Flat
No.306, 3rd Floor, Ashok Bhopal Chambers, S.P.Road,
Secunderabad-500003', to its current address - 'Villa
No.73, Ashoka A la Maison, Dulapally, Kompally,
Hyderabad-500014'. Petitioner also contends that the OIO
was passed without any personal hearing. Petitioner has
come to know of the liability only upon issuance of recovery
notice dated 25.11.2024, whereafter its bank account was
closed. It has approached this Court on 04.09.2025. It
prays for quashing of the impugned OIO dated 30.09.2023,
as it is not only time barred but is also passed in violation
of principles of natural justice. As per the statement made
at para 5 of the writ petition, it is evident that the
petitioner has changed its previous address to a new
address.
3. Sub-rule (5A) of Rule 4 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994
(for short, 'the Rules'), reads as under:
"(5A) Where there is a change in any information or details
furnished by an assessee in Form ST-1 at the time of obtaining
registration or he intends to furnish any additional information
or detail, such change or information or details shall be
intimated, in writing, by the assessee, to the jurisdictional
Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Central
Excise, as the case may be, within a period of thirty days of
such change."
4. The above sub-rule (5A) of Rule 4 of the Rules
prescribes that any change in any information or details
furnished in Form ST-1, if required, should be furnished by
an assessee by way of intimation in writing to the
jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner or Deputy
Commissioner of Central Excise. Hence, the petitioner had
to furnish information within a period of 30 days of such
change in its address. However, there is no statement in
the writ petition that any such intimation was sent. The
petitioner had changed its address on its own without
intimation to the respondents-authorities.
5. It is also alleged that no show cause notice was
served upon it nor personal hearing was allowed before
passing the impugned OIO. Learned counsel for the
respondents submits that even if it is assumed that the
petitioner came to know of the impugned OIO only upon
issuance of recovery proceedings dated 25.11.2024, it has
preferred the present writ petition only on 04.09.2025, i.e.
much beyond the period prescribed for appeal before the
appellate authority under Section 85 of the Act. Learned
counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment
rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Assistant
Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline
Consumer Health Care Limited 1 and submits that the
plea relating to non-service of show cause notice and
violation of principles of natural justice are untenable, for
the reason that the petitioner had changed its address
without intimation to the jurisdictional assessment officer.
Even after knowledge of the recovery proceedings
dated 25.11.2024, it has approached this Court after much
delay, and therefore, the writ petition may not be
entertained.
6. On consideration of rival submissions of the parties
and on perusal of the record, we are of the view that firstly,
the petitioner itself is at fault for having changed its
address without intimation to the jurisdictional assessment
(2020) 19 SCC 681
officer. Therefore, he cannot take a plea that the show
cause notice was not properly served. Secondly, even after
coming to know of the recovery proceedings, it has
approached this Court after expiry of the period of
limitation to prefer the statutory appeal.
7. Therefore, on both the counts, we are not inclined to
interfere with the OIO impugned in the writ petition.
8. Accordingly, the instant Writ Petition is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
_____________________________________
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ
____________________________
G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J
Date:15.09.2025
GJ
