M/S Shiva Veener(INDIA) PVT. LTD., Lucknow Thru. Authorized Signatory, Dharmendra Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA Thru. Ministry Of Finance, New Delhi And Another

Facts

M/s Shiva Veener (India) Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner, challenged an order dated 08.11.2024 passed by the Principal Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise Commissionerate, Lucknow. The order confirmed a demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 2,03,49,433/- and imposed penalties under Sections 73(1), 78, and 77(1)(b), (c), and (d) of the Finance Act, 1994, read with Sections 142, 173, and 174 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without proper notice. The respondent-Union of India argued that notices were sent via registered speed post but returned unclaimed, constituting sufficient service. However, the respondent did not annex postal receipts to support this claim.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 08.11.2024, passed by the Principal Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise Commissionerate, Lucknow, was quashed. The Court's primary reasoning was that while the respondent claimed to have sent notices via registered speed post which were returned unclaimed, they failed to provide any documentary evidence, such as postal receipts, to substantiate this claim. The Court emphasized that the endeavor should be to decide disputes on merits after giving adequate opportunity of hearing, and such opportunity should not be denied on hyper-technical grounds. Therefore, to ensure justice and provide the petitioner with a fair hearing, the matter was remanded. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Principal Commissioner on 03.05.2024 to file their reply and documents. The Principal Commissioner was then directed to decide the matter afresh on merits after granting an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 08.11.2024, confirming a service tax demand and penalties, was passed without proper service of notice on the petitioner, thereby violating principles of natural justice, as argued by the petitioner? 2. Whether notices sent via registered speed post, which were returned unclaimed, constitute sufficient service of notice, as argued by the respondent-Union of India? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the order was invalid as it was passed without any notice being served upon them, thus denying them an opportunity to be heard. Respondent's Contention: The respondent contended that notices were duly sent to the petitioner through registered speed post, and their non-receipt or return unclaimed by the petitioner amounts to sufficient service of notice. They relied on the principle that if notices are sent to the correct address and not claimed, it is considered proper service.