Allowed

M/s. Sri Jayanth Engineering Company v. Commissioner of Central Taxes

Telangana HC28 Jul 2023WP/9513/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an order confirming service tax demand and penalty. The impugned order was set aside as it was passed without affording a fair opportunity of personal hearing due to defective service of notices and emails. The order was treated as a notice for personal hearing.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 01.11.2022 was set aside. It was treated as a notice for personal hearing and the petitioner was ordered to appear before the original adjudicating authority on 08.09.2023.

M/s. Sri Jayanth Engineering Company Vs… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^337e ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY,THE TWENry EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 9513 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s. Sri Jayanth Engineering Company, A registered partnership firm having its regd. Office at D.No.1-5-598/2/404, Vaishnavi Moukthika Apartments, Road No.6, New Maruthi Nagar, Ranga Reddy Dist.-500035, Rep. by its Managing Partner Sri Atluri Chandra Sekhar, S/o. Late Sri Atluri Bhagat Singh.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Commjssioner of Central Taxes, Ranga Reddy GST Commissionerate, Posnett Bhavah, Tilak Road, Ramkote, Hyderabad-500001 .

¶12

...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the impugned order dated 01 .11.2022 (received on^'19.0'1 .2023) passed by the Respondent in Order in Original No.HydExcus-004-COM-O17-2022-23 with DIN -2022'1156YQ0000000556, invoking provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 for the tax period 01 .04.2016 to 30.06.2017 levying service tax as also penalty equivalent to tax as also interest without cause service of the notices dated 16.07.202'l , 08.09.2021 , 14.09.2021 and emails dated 11.02.2021 , 17.07.2021 and 2O.O9.2O21 as being violative of principles of natural justice, without authority of law and^{jurisdiction,} arbitrary, contrary to the^provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 relating to Service Tax and violative of articles 1a,19^(1Xg) and 265 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the same.

¶13

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶14

Petitron u n,J r. :iection^'1 51 CPC praying that irr the :^'currstances stated in the affidavit filer,l n support of the petition, the High Courr. may be pleased to suspend the operirl rrrr c,f impugned ordr:r 01 .11.2O2i'(re<;t:ir,ed on 19.01.2023) passed by the, Rer 'rc nclent in Order in Original No Hyd-[: <,;us -004-COM-01 7- 2022-23 with DIN -: l:121 1 56YQ0000000556, invoking prov s ,)ns of the Finance Act, 1 994 for the r.;l perlod 01 04 2016 to 30.06.2017 levyir.cJ service tax as also penalty equrva lenl, t( t;rx as also interest.

¶15

Counsel for the Pet tioner: SRI A.V.RAGHU RAM Counsel for the Res tx)ndents:^{SRI DOMINIC FERNANDES} The Court made th€ following: ORDER

¶16

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

¶17

1VRIT PETITION No. 9513 OF 2023

¶18

ORAL ORDER: Per Hon'ble Sri Justice P. Sam Koshy)

¶19

The present writ petition is filed assailing the Order dated Ol.l1.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax. The Commissioner in the course of deciding the matter has confirmed the demand raised by the Assessing Authority to the tune of Rs.2,13,62,31 | /- and has also confirmed the demand of interest and penalty imposed.

¶20

Heard Sri A.V. Raghuram, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned counsel for respondent - Department.

¶21

The primary contention of the learned counsel for petitioner was that the impugned order has been passed without affording a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as the showcause notice itself was not served upon him so as to enable him to respond to it.

¶22

On the previous date of hearing, the learned Bench has asked the learned counsel appearing for respondent - Department to seek instructions _with regard to the above contention. Today, the learned

¶23

¶24

-a

¶25

counse[ [or rt':;J rr dcnt I)cpartmcnt, fairlt, sr-rb nils tli rt t rc showcause notice in fac:t^..r, rs n,lt s(lrvc(l upon the pctitioncr rrnd Ccnccdes t-hat the noticc for F)e rsi, ) a hearing n'as also not scrved r- pon 1t-, 1tr tition<:r.

¶26

5 Thc srri r;ubmissiorr ol thc Iearned cou rscl frrr tl-rc parlies finds strcngth tt,^t-1r -' rirrdir-rgs grvcn ur the impugncd ordc- ttsc[[ rvherein, in paragraPh Nc)^.J tlre Comnrissioncr has a<:ccptcd lhc Ir t tl at tl.rc scrvice pror,ider nr:itht' reolicrl to the sl-rowcause n rtir:r: n,tr' .rttenclcd the personal h,--irritl r lt was ftrrther statcd tl-rat tl'rc intrnrrr iorL lor personal hcarir-rg seltl 1o tlre scn,ir:c provrdcr was rcturncrl rr^- ilel w:rcd bv the postal autl-rortr, s, lrom rvl.rit:[r itsclf it is cvidcnl tlrztt l]rc pctitioner was not given a chaLr ::r oI pcrsonal hczrring prior to tlrc in'r1r 1r'rt cl ord<:r beir-rg passed.

¶27

Lerrrnt'r r:ounscl lor the l)arties acccltt thr: [zLc. that under similar cir::unL: a lces, this High Court itsclf erLrlicr hrrs rcrnanded matters of su,:h n,rtrre to thc rtriginal adjudicaling e llr ho^-ity, treating the rmpugrcd or k r itsell trs a shou,cause notir:e br pers r;tt I hcirring.

¶28

Thrr k: led counscl lbr rcspondcnt - Dcp,l ttn(:nt cloes not oppose to t.l-tr: 1rr^,positiorr lbrwardt:d by thc learn,'d courrscl for pctitioner for rcmandLng rl 3 m,rtter lrac:k to the adjudicatirg :rutl, rit r lor personal hearing anrl 1lr:r 1 ) l)ass a1;propriatr: orders in ar:corrlir '('^,vith lau,.

¶29

+-.

¶30

¶31

B. [n view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and also taking note of the specific findings given in paragraph No.S of the impugned order, this Bench is also of the firm view that the impugned order has been passed without granting an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. For the said reason, the impugned order dated O1.11.2022 deserves to be set-aside and is accordingly set aside.

¶32

It is further ordered that the impugned order dated O1.l | .2022 itself be treated as notice for personal hearing and the petitioner shall appear before the original adjudicating authority on O8.O9.2O23. It is made clear that if the petitioner so wants, he may also give a reply to the showcause notice and only after being given an opportunity of hearing and thereafter, the authority concerned shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed.

¶33

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Appeal stand dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶34

To,

¶35

ASS''fRiT#EXHiH //TRUE COPYil fi\Q.;:, itAr3 sEcTfdN oFffctR

¶36

1 Commissioner of Central Taxes, Ranga Reddy GST Commissionerate, Posnett Bhavan, Titak Road, Ramkot6, HvOeiiUiO_'SOOOOf . 2. 9n" QQ^{to SRtA.V.RAGHURAM,nOvocite-.} roFuci' 3. one cc to SRt DOM|Ntc FERNAiIDES, Abu,jcit".'[6puct 4. Two CD Copies. BS K GJ P

Pr'.t

HIGH COUR]

DATED:28107 12.023

ORDER

,r'" .--ar, STA'I .:o
$B
l []t
?!, ;*
{
il

¶42

WP.No.9513,r{ 2023

¶43

ALLOWING I HE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT C( STS

¶44

{r4^C., r6[elr3

M/s. Sri Jayanth Engineering Company v. Commissioner of Central Taxes

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Sri Jayanth Engineering Company v. Commissioner of Central Taxes

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Sri Surya Constructions Vs The Income Tax Officer

Jalavihar Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Telangana

Jupally Real Estate Developers Private Limited Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

M/s. Nanesh Finance Corporation Vs Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Hyderabad

M/s. Ph Jewels and 2 others Vs Union of India and 5 others

Sanjay Agarwal Vs Union of India