Recon A Proprietor Firm, Through Its Sole Proprietor Namely Prabhat Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIA And Ors

Held

The Court noted a factual dispute regarding the service of the impugned order on the petitioner. Given this dispute, the Court held that it would not interfere in such disputed questions of fact in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, especially when a statutory remedy of appeal is available. The Court reasoned that the Appellate Authority is the appropriate forum to adjudicate all factual disputes, including the service of the order and the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the statutory Appellate Authority within 15 days from the date of the order, seeking condonation of delay. The Appellate Authority was directed to decide the appeal on merits. Regarding the seizure of the bank account, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to seek an interim stay in the appeal, and the Appellate Authority was directed to decide the application for stay on the same day the appeal is presented.

Facts

The petitioner, RECON, a proprietorship firm, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging a demand for service tax. The petitioner claimed that despite depositing the entire service tax due, a demand was raised without serving a copy of the impugned order imposing the liability and without hearing the petitioner. The petitioner sought protective orders, including the release of their seized bank account. The Revenue, in response, filed a counter affidavit stating that an adjudication order was passed and communicated to the petitioner via speed post on November 9, 2017, and served on November 13, 2017, as evidenced by dispatch and delivery documents.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order imposing service tax liability was duly served on the petitioner, as required by law, and whether the petitioner was afforded an adequate opportunity of being heard? (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural due process under GST/Service Tax laws). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the order imposing liability was not served, and therefore, the demand raised was invalid. They relied on the fact that they were not provided with a copy of the order. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended that the adjudication order was indeed served on the petitioner via speed post on November 13, 2017, supported by documentary evidence from the Department of Posts and Delivery. They argued that the petitioner's claim of non-service was factually incorrect.