M/S Bhagirath Infra Projects (Ap) Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Central Tax

Held

The Court, acknowledging disputed questions of fact regarding the service of notices and the denial of personal hearing, decided not to delve into these factual disputes. Instead, the Court set aside the impugned order dated 26.03.2024. The Court directed the 1st respondent (Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax) to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner fixing a date for personal hearing. This notice is to be sent by email to 'bhagirathnnv@gmail.com', which is stated to be the email ID on GST records. The petitioner is to appear upon receipt of this notice and present their objections. The 1st respondent will then be free to pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioner. In the peculiar circumstances, the Court directed that the petitioner shall not raise the issue of limitation. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions, with no order as to costs.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Bhagirath Infra Projects (AP) Private Limited, engaged in road, bridge, and irrigation works, received a show cause notice dated 11.12.2020 demanding service tax on turnover reported in income tax returns for FY 2015-16 and 2016-17. The petitioner filed objections. Subsequently, an order of assessment dated 26.03.2024 was issued. The petitioner contended that they did not receive a personal hearing notice after submitting objections, which prejudiced their case as the assessing authority could not appreciate their exemption claim under notification No.25/2012. The Revenue filed a memo with documents purporting to show personal hearing intimations were sent via email and post. The petitioner disputed the validity of these notices, stating the email ID was not theirs and postal notices were returned unserved.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner was denied a personal hearing in violation of the principles of natural justice, thereby vitiating the assessment order dated 26.03.2024? 2. Whether the notices allegedly sent by the Revenue for personal hearing were duly served on the petitioner? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that they were not afforded a personal hearing after submitting their objections to the show cause notice. They contended that this lack of hearing prevented the assessing authority from considering their claim for exemption under notification No.25/2012. Furthermore, the petitioner asserted that the email ID used by the Revenue for sending notices was not theirs and was not registered with the GST authorities. They also pointed out that postal notices were returned unserved, indicating no proper service of notice. Revenue's Arguments: The Revenue, through its Standing Counsel, submitted a memo containing documents that purportedly showed personal hearing intimations were sent to the petitioner via email and post. Based on these documents, the Revenue contended that notices were indeed served, and therefore, the petitioner's claim of violation of natural justice and the requirement of a personal hearing was not maintainable.