Allowed

M/s. Sri Lakshmi Gayathri Fabs v. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax

Telangana HC5 Oct 2023WP/27269/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an order assessing short payment of taxable services. The Court held that show-cause notices were not effectively served due to the petitioner's surrendered registration, violating natural justice. The impugned order was set aside and remitted.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 31.01.2023 was set aside. It was treated as a show-cause notice, and the respondent was directed to respond within four weeks or by 06.11.2023 to decide the matter afresh.

M/s. Sri Lakshmi Gayathri Fabs Vs The Deputy… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁸⁶¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUST]CE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO:27269 oF 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

M/s. Sri Lakshmi Gayathri Fabs, H. No.25- 29118t43/A, Sri Sai Naqar Colonv. R. C. Puram, Sangareddy District. Represented by its proprieior Mr. (. Ramakrishna Reddy.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The Deputy C_ommis.sioner of Central Tax, Gachchibowli CGST Division, Rangareddy CGST Commissionerate, Humayun Nagar, Masabtank, Hyderabad - 500 028.

¶13

The Superindent- Service Tax, Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Hyderabad - lV Commissionerate, Hyderabad.

¶14

The.Supcrinlglggnt of Customs and Centrat Tax, Miyapur GST Range, Gachchibowli Division, Hyderabad.

¶15

The Union,of lndia, Rep by its Secretary to Govemment, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or (irder or direction declaring the action of 1st Respondent in passing the Ex-pa(e Orderin-original dated 31.01.2023 for the tax period 2014'1s under the service Tax Act, as per Finance Act,1994, as arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994, is patently barred by limitation, without jurisdiction and in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and Rule of Law and consequen y set aside the Order- in- Original dated 31.01 .2023 passed by the 1st Respondent, served on the Petitioner on 02, 08. 2023, as null and void.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Order-in-Original dated 31.01.2023, passed by the 1st Respondent, for the tax period 2014-15 under the. Service Tax Act, as per Finance Act,^'1994 served on the Petitioner on 02.08.2023, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition, as otherwise, the Petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SHAIK JEELANI BASHA

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: SRI DOMINIC FERNANDES (sc FoR cBrc)

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DY. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^P.SAMKOSHY

¶25

H.N,BLE SRI JUSTICE,ffi,^{NARAYANAALISHETTY}

¶26

STRIT PETITION NO.27269 OF 2023

¶27

ORDER: (trter Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Som^Koshg)

¶28

The challenge in the^present writ^{petition is to the order-} in-original, dated 31.O1.2023^{passedby the respondentNo. l for} the AsseSsment Year 2Ol4-15.^{Vide the said impugned order,} the respondent No.l has assessed^{short payment of taxable} services to the tune of^Rs.23,54,O0I /-^{along with penaltyof} Rs.1O,OOO/- under Section 77 of the^{Finance Act, 1994(for} short, ActJ and the late^fee of^{Rs.40,O00/-for not filingthe} returns within the time under Section^{70 of the Act and also for} the penalty of the equal amount^{o[ Rs.23,54,00I} /^-under Section 78 of the Act.

¶29

The basic challenge made by the^{petitioner is that the} impugned order has been^{passed withoutaffording fair and} reasonable opportunity of hearing^{to the petitioner.Accordingto} the petitioner, the show-cause^{noticesthat wereissuedhave} never been served upon the^{petitioner.Moreover,the petitioner's} establishment stood^{closed and the petitioner had surrendered} their registration in the^{year 2o 14 itself.}

¶30

PSK,J& LA'1.J It'P No.27269 o12023

¶31

¶32

On the previous date of hearing, we instructed the learned counsel for the Department to ascertain whether the show_ cause notice was served upon the petitioner or not.

¶33

Today, learned counsel for the Department submits that the show-cause notice, in this regard, was sent on 22.O9.2O22. However, there does not seem to be an endorsement of the notice having been elfectively served upon the petitioner herein. Having perused the impugned order also, it does not reflect that the show-cause notice was issued on 27.09.2022 or any subseqrrent date, have been duly served upon the petitioner.

¶34

The contention of the petitioner is thal they had surrendered the registration as business itself was closed by the petitioner in the year 2014. In view of the same, rve are of the considered opinion that it appears that the show-cause notices issued were not effectively served upon the petitioner. As such, they have not got a fair arrd reasonable opportunity to defend their case before the order impugned i.e., the order-in- original has been passed.

¶35

For the aforesaid reasons alone, we are inclined to allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned order (AnnexurePl) dated 31.O1.2023. Taking into consideration that the

¶36

PSK.J& LNA,J tYP No 27269 o12023

¶37

¶38

impugned order has been set aside only on the^ground of^it being violative of principles of natural justice, while remitting the matter back to the respondent No.1, it is ordered that the impugned order (Annexure-Pl), dated 31.O1.2O23 itself be treated as show-cause notice and the respondent no. I may respond to the show-cause notice within a period of four (04) weeks or by 06.11.2023 and the respondent No. 1 may proceed further and decide the matter afresh, taking into consideration the contention that the petitioner would raise in the reply to the show-cause notice.

¶39

The Writ Petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶40

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶41

SD/- P.Ch. NAGABHUSHAMBA ASSISTAryI, REGISTRAR (+ //TRUE Copy/t

¶42

SECTION OFFICER

¶43

To.'", I The Deoutv commissioner of central Tax, Gachchibowli GGST Division, ' iiig;;da'v beSf commissionerate, Humayun Nagar' Masabtank' Hvderabad - 500 028'

¶44

z itJ-si"eri"dlni_ Service^{Tax,Customs, centralExcise and Service Tax,}

¶45

H;derabad - lV Commissionerate, Hyderabad'

¶46

a. ifrJ3ro"rioent oidustoms^{andCeniral rax' MivapurGST Range'} Gachcfiibowli Division,^Hvderabad'

¶47

- itiJ stii"tlry-to co',"mfr,*i,^{Departmentof Revenue, The Union of lndia,} Nlinistrv of Finance,^{New Delhi.}

¶48

s. one Cbio snt sHArr^{JEELANI BASHA,} 4qv-ogate Loqu-c-l-. .^6. o;; ac 6 SRi^{DoruttticFERNANDES (sc FoRcBlc)[oPUC]}

¶49

Two CD CoPies

BN GJP

-ft\q.

HIGH COURT

DATED:0511012023

ORDER

*
/ ..j,? taTS
/: )'
,,,,'-
I
2 B otl 2ul
\ ..)c
t,
\l;
' :.-

¶56

WP.No.27269 of 2023

¶57

ALLOWNG THE WRIT PETITION WTHOUT COSTS

¶58

\xlro<sup>+3.

M/s. Sri Lakshmi Gayathri Fabs v. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Sri Lakshmi Gayathri Fabs v. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Revelli Lakshmi Narsimha Rao Vs Bank of Baroda

Ponnam Laxmi and Anr. Vs Ap State Road Transport Corporation

The Commissioner of Income Tax-Vi Vs Sri. K. Srinivasa Reddy Proprietor

Sri M. Ashok Kumar Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Sri M. Ashok Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

The Commissioner Vs M/s. Astrix Laboratories Ltd.