Subramanian Chandran vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise

Facts

The petitioner, Subramanian Chandran, a contractor, challenged an Order-in-Original dated 08.09.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Dindigul II Division. This order confirmed a demand of service tax, Swatchh Bharat Cess, and Krishi Kalyan Cess amounting to Rs. 16,73,787/- for the period from 2015-16 to 2017-18 (up to June 2017). The demand was raised via a Show Cause Notice dated 17.07.2020. The impugned order also imposed interest and penalties under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994, and Rules. The dispute pertains to the levy of service tax on works contract services provided to Chinnamanur Municipality. The petitioner contended that the order was passed in violation of natural justice due to the denial of a personal hearing and claimed entitlement to exemption under Mega Exemption Notification No. 25-2012-ST.

Held

The Court held that there was no point in setting aside the impugned order and remitting the case back to the respondent to pass a fresh order in light of the Division Bench's decision in M/s. Raju Construction Vs. The Government of India. The Court observed that it was still open for the petitioner to work out their remedy against the Chinnamanur Municipality by applying the principle under Section 64(A) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. The Court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding natural justice or the applicability of the Mega Exemption Notification, implicitly accepting the respondents' contention that the matter was covered by the Division Bench judgment and that remanding the case would be futile. The operative direction was to dismiss the Writ Petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned Order-in-Original No.MDU-ST-AC-29-2022 dated 08.09.2022, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Dindigul II Division, is liable to be quashed for violating the principles of natural justice by not granting a personal hearing to the petitioner, as per Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice as no personal hearing was granted. While admitting no arithmetic errors, the petitioner claimed they were not liable to pay the tax and were entitled to an exemption under Mega Exemption Notification No. 25-2012-ST, Sl.No.12. Respondents' arguments: The respondents contended that the petitioner was adequately offered an opportunity to be heard and given time to reply, but neither filed a reply nor appeared for a personal hearing. They further argued that the issue is covered by a Division Bench order of the same High Court in M/s. Raju Construction Vs. The Government of India (dated 30.11.2022), against which an SLP was dismissed, rendering the present petition devoid of merit. They also submitted that remitting the case back would serve no useful purpose as the respondent would be bound by the Division Bench's decision.