Sri Vasantham Bhaskar Punith Kumar vs. The Assistant Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Vasantham Bhaskar Punith Kumar, challenged an order dated 28.03.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, West Division-5, Bengaluru West GST Commissionerate. The order pertained to the financial years 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18, and was passed under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. The petitioner's primary contention was that no Show Cause Notice (SCN) was served on him, and the order in original was communicated directly. The revenue contended that the address used for sending the notice was taken from Form 26AS proceedings under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Held

The Court held that it would be appropriate to afford the petitioner an opportunity to respond to the Show Cause Notice. While the revenue contended that the notice was sent to an address sourced from Income Tax Act proceedings, the Court noted the petitioner's submission that he was not registered under the Service Tax Regime. Consequently, the order dated 28.03.2024 was set aside. The matter was remitted back to the stage of a reply to the Show Cause Notice. The petitioner is to be furnished with an additional copy of the SCN within two weeks of receiving a certified copy of this order, after which the petitioner can file a reply. All contentions of both parties were kept open.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 28.03.2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, is valid, considering the petitioner's assertion that no Show Cause Notice was served upon him? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the order was bad in law as no SCN was issued to him, and the order in original was communicated directly. The petitioner also stated that he was not registered under the Service Tax Regime. Revenue's contention: The revenue submitted that the address used for sending the notice was derived from Form 26AS proceedings under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and that notice was sent to this address.