Krishna Kant Thakur vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that since no agreements were submitted along with the petitioner's objections, the Assessing Authority was unable to consider whether the exemption under Notification No. 25 of 2012-Service Tax was available. The Court opined that the petitioner should avail the appellate remedy. The Court directed that if an appeal is filed within one month from the date of the order, it should be accepted without reckoning the delay and considered on its merits. The Court explicitly stated that it had not made any observations on the merits of the matter. The ratio is that a claim for exemption requiring the submission of supporting documents cannot be considered if those documents are not provided to the assessing authority, and the proper recourse is to pursue the available appellate remedy.

Facts

The petitioner, Krishna Kant Thakur, is challenging an order (Annexure-P8) imposing a liability to tax under the CGST Act. The petitioner claims that his contracts were exempted as per Notification No. 25 of 2012-Service Tax dated 20.06.2012. However, the impugned order noted that no agreements were produced by the petitioner along with his objections. The petitioner's counsel contended that the agreements were submitted separately via email. It is admitted that no agreements were submitted with the objections, preventing the Assessing Authority from considering the availability of the exemption.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim exemption under Notification No. 25 of 2012-Service Tax dated 20.06.2012, given that no agreements were submitted with his objections to the Assessing Authority? (Question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation of the conditions for exemption and the procedural requirements for claiming it). Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argues that his contracts are exempted under the specified notification. He claims that the agreements were submitted via a separate email, implying that the Assessing Authority should have considered them. Revenue's contentions: The revenue's position, as reflected in the order, is that no agreements were submitted with the petitioner's objections, which disabled the Assessing Authority from considering the exemption claim.