Md. Alal Uddin vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 Ors

Held

The Court held that for the ends of justice, the Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Tezpur Division (Respondent No. 3) should be directed to pass a fresh order after providing the writ petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The Court set aside the impugned ex-parte order dated February 5, 2020, without commenting on its merits. The petitioner was granted 15 days from the date of the order to submit his show-cause reply to Respondent No. 3, accompanied by a certified copy of the High Court's order. Upon submission, Respondent No. 3 was directed to fix a date for hearing and pass a fresh order in accordance with law after giving the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The issue of the petitioner's liability for service tax as a sub-contractor was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The writ petitioner, Md. Alal Uddin, a sub-contractor, is challenging an ex-parte order dated February 5, 2020, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Tezpur Division. The order imposed a service tax liability on the petitioner. The petitioner contends that he was not served any notice regarding the proceedings, and therefore, could not present his case, which is that as a sub-contractor, he is not liable for service tax. He further argues that while the assessment order was delivered by hand, the notice of the proceeding was not, despite the authorities being aware of the difficulty in postal delivery to his remote location.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ex-parte order dated February 5, 2020, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Tezpur Division, imposing service tax liability on the writ petitioner, is liable to be set aside on the ground of non-service of notice and violation of principles of natural justice, as argued by the petitioner? The petitioner contends that no notice was served, preventing him from presenting his defense that he is not liable as a sub-contractor. The revenue, represented by the Standing Counsel, GST, initially objected to the maintainability of the writ petition due to the availability of an alternative appellate remedy but fairly conceded that the petitioner may have a genuine grievance as the impugned order was passed ex-parte without hearing the petitioner.