M/S. Crushaders Tech Solution LLP, Khandagiri, Khurda vs. Superintendent GST And Central Excise, Bhubaneswar Ii Division

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Crushaders Tech Solution LLP, filed a writ petition before the Orissa High Court challenging the inaction of the Assistant Commissioner, GST & Central Excise, Cuttack-I Division, in not issuing a certified copy of an Order-in-Original dated August 30, 2024. The petitioner also assailed a recovery notice dated October 16, 2025, issued by the Assistant Commissioner, GST & Central Excise, Bhubaneswar-II Division, for recovery of service tax demand. The petitioner had exported software services during Financial Years 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17, which they contended were not subject to service tax. A Show Cause Notice was issued on September 25, 2020, under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. The petitioner claimed the adjudication order was never served, preventing them from filing an appeal, and they only became aware of the demand from their bank.

Held

The Court acknowledged the petitioner's contentions regarding the transactions not falling within the scope of the Finance Act, 1994, and the potential issue of limitation concerning the Adjudication Order. However, the Court found that these factual matters required adjudication by the competent authority. Recognizing that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy by way of an appeal under the Finance Act, 1994, the Court directed the petitioner to file an appeal within fifteen days from the date of the order. The Court clarified that the Appellate Authority should not raise the issue of limitation if the appeal is filed within this period, as the copy of the Adjudication Order was supplied during the hearing. The Appellate Authority was instructed to admit and decide the appeal on its merits, considering all pleas available to the petitioner, including the point of limitation, without being influenced by any observations made by the High Court on the merits. The Court also referred to the Supreme Court's guideline in "Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Vrs. State of Karnataka" emphasizing the need for courts to adjudicate on all issues.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Show Cause Notice dated September 25, 2020, issued for adjudication of tax liability for Financial Years 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17, was beyond the statutory period of limitation stipulated under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994? 2. Whether the transactions pertaining to the export of software services during the said financial years fall outside the scope of the Finance Act, 1994, as contended by the petitioner based on Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules and Section 65B(52) of the Act? 3. Whether the non-service of the Adjudication Order dated August 30, 2024, and the subsequent inaction in providing a certified copy, vitiates the recovery proceedings initiated under Section 87 of the Finance Act, 1994? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the Show Cause Notice was time-barred. They contended that the export of services did not fall under the purview of the Finance Act, 1994, citing Rule 6A and Section 65B(52). They also argued that the non-service of the adjudication order and the delay in providing a certified copy prevented them from filing an appeal and suggested the order might not have been passed within the stipulated period. Revenue's Arguments: The Senior Standing Counsel for the revenue submitted that the adjudication order was communicated through Speed Post, which was returned undelivered. They handed over a photocopy of the adjudication order during the hearing and suggested the petitioner be directed to file an appeal.