M/S Rittik Clinic And Laboratory vs. Deputy Commissioner Of CGST And Cx, Joka Division And Ors

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Rittik Clinic and Laboratory, filed a writ petition challenging an adjudication order that raised a demand under the Service Tax Act. The petitioner contended that Service Tax is not leviable as it is not a registered person and had never applied for registration. The petitioner also claimed to have made several unconsidered representations on this issue. The respondent Service Tax authority argued that the petitioner's allegations regarding unconsidered representations were incorrect, and that they were considered before the impugned assessment order was passed. The petitioner had made a further representation on October 6, 2023, which was stated to be pending.

Held

The Court considered the facts and circumstances, including the petitioner's primary contention that they are not a registered person and therefore not leviable to tax, which is largely a question of fact. The Court noted that the petitioner had made a representation on October 6, 2023, which was pending. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of by directing the respondent authority to consider and dispose of this representation. The disposal must be reasoned and speaking, with an opportunity for a hearing granted to the petitioner within four weeks. If the petitioner fails to substantiate their case with supporting documents, the impugned order dated August 9, 2023, will become effective. No coercive action for recovery of the demand will be taken until the representation is disposed of. The Court also clarified that no unnecessary adjournments would be granted to the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether Service Tax is leviable upon the petitioner, who claims to be an unregistered person and not liable to tax, turning on the interpretation of provisions related to taxability and registration under the Service Tax Act. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that Service Tax is not leviable upon them because they are not a registered person and have never applied for registration. They further contended that their numerous representations on this matter were not considered by the authorities. Revenue's arguments: The respondent Service Tax authority countered that the petitioner's claim of unconsidered representations is incorrect, stating that such representations were indeed considered prior to the passing of the impugned assessment order.