Amar Kr. Saha vs. Jt. Commissioner, Howrah CGST And Cx Commissionerate And Ors.

Held

The Court affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge, holding that the writ court was justified in not entertaining the direct challenge to the show cause notice. The Court reasoned that for effective adjudication and to protect the interests of both the appellant (service provider) and the revenue, the service recipient, the Executive Engineer, Hooghly Highway Division No.1, Public Works (Roads) Directorate, must be heard. The show cause notice was issued only to the appellant. Therefore, the Court directed the Adjudicating Authority to issue notice to the Executive Engineer and hear them during the adjudication of the show cause notice, rather than restricting it solely to the appellant. The Public Works Department would not be entitled to raise the issue of limitation. The adjudication was to be completed within eight weeks, during which no coercive action would be taken against the appellant.

Facts

The appellant, Amar Kumar Saha, challenged a show cause notice dated April 20, 2022, issued by the Joint Commissioner, Howrah GST & Central Excise Commissioner, demanding service tax. The appellant contended that the services for which the tax was demanded were rendered before July 2017, i.e., prior to the GST regime, and thus fell under the purview of Service Tax Rules, 1994. He had approached the Public Works Department (PWD) for reimbursement of service tax. The Executive Engineer, Hooghly Highway Division No.1, PWD, responded on June 3, 2022, stating that the appellant had not raised any claim for reimbursement of service tax for services rendered before July 2017, making it impossible for the department to process any reimbursement. The appellant then moved the writ court, which did not entertain the challenge to the show cause notice but directed that the service recipient, the Executive Engineer, should also be heard.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned writ court was justified in not entertaining the challenge to the show cause notice issued by the Joint Commissioner, Howrah GST & Central Excise Commissioner, to the appellant, Amar Kumar Saha, for alleged service tax demand. Petitioner's arguments: The appellant argued that the services were rendered before the GST regime, and the PWD's communication indicated an inability to process reimbursement due to the appellant not raising claims. The appellant sought to have the service recipient involved in the adjudication process to resolve the matter effectively. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the revenue or state. However, the court's reasoning implies that the revenue's interest, along with the appellant's, needed protection through a comprehensive adjudication.