M/S. Img Systems Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIA

Facts

The Petitioner, Ittlg t]t{c Systems Private Limited, a provider of IT services including software exports, filed a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Original (OIO) dated 30.09.2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs and Central Tax. The OIO imposed a liability of Rs. 4,90,308/- with interest and penalty for the tax period April 2016 to March 2017. The Petitioner claimed the OIO was time-barred and passed in violation of natural justice, as a show cause notice dated 17.06.2022 was allegedly not served due to a change in address. The Petitioner only became aware of the liability upon receiving a recovery notice dated 25.11.2024, after which its bank account was frozen. The writ petition was filed on 04.09.2025.

Held

The Court dismissed the writ petition. It held that the Petitioner was at fault for changing its address without intimating the jurisdictional assessment officer, as mandated by Sub-rule (5A) of Rule 4 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. Consequently, the Petitioner could not claim that the show cause notice was not properly served. Furthermore, the Court noted that even after becoming aware of the recovery proceedings on 25.11.2024, the Petitioner approached the High Court on 04.09.2025, which was significantly beyond the period of limitation for preferring a statutory appeal. Therefore, on both counts – the failure to intimate address change and the delay in approaching the Court – the Court found no grounds to interfere with the impugned Order-in-Original. The ratio decidendi is that a party cannot take advantage of its own failure to comply with statutory requirements regarding intimation of address changes, nor can it seek equitable relief from the High Court after significant delay in pursuing statutory remedies.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned Order-in-Original dated 30.09.2023 is time-barred and consequently illegal, in light of the Petitioner's alleged non-receipt of the show cause notice due to a change in address, thereby violating principles of natural justice? Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner argued that the OIO was time-barred and passed in violation of principles of natural justice because the show cause notice dated 17.06.2022 was not served. This non-service was attributed to a change in the Petitioner's business address without proper intimation to the authorities. The Petitioner contended that it only learned of the liability through a recovery notice dated 25.11.2024, and the OIO was passed without affording a personal hearing. Respondents' Contention: The Respondents argued that the Petitioner failed to comply with Sub-rule (5A) of Rule 4 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, by not intimating the change of address in writing to the jurisdictional authority within thirty days. They further submitted that even if the Petitioner became aware of the OIO on 25.11.2024, the writ petition was filed on 04.09.2025, which is beyond the period prescribed for filing a statutory appeal under Section 85 of the Act. Reliance was placed on the Apex Court's judgment in Assistant Commissioner (CT) v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited.