M/S Pawan Enterprises Through Its Proprietor Pawan Kumar Mahto vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court did not decide on the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner, after some argument, sought permission to withdraw the writ petition to avail of the alternative remedy of appeal before the appellate authority. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. The petitioner was granted liberty to pursue the remedy available in law. No specific findings were made on the validity of the ex-parte order or the attachment of bank accounts, nor was the issue of payment of service tax for the financial year 2014-15 adjudicated upon by the High Court. The Court's decision was based solely on the petitioner's request to withdraw.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Pawan Enterprises, through its Proprietor Pawan Kumar Mahto, filed a writ petition challenging an ex-parte order (O.I.O No. 69/AC/CGST & C.Ex./Rmg.Div/2021 dated 28.03.2022) issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Central GST & C.Ex., Ramgarh Division. This order imposed service tax, penalty, and interest under the Finance Act, 1994, pursuant to a show cause notice dated 18.09.2020. Subsequently, a letter dated 07.12.2022 was issued to the Branch Manager, Bank of India, Ramgarh Project, attaching all the petitioner's bank accounts. The petitioner contended that they had already paid all service taxes for the financial year 2014-15 and sought quashing of the attachment and a fresh proceeding with a personal hearing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ex-parte order dated 28.03.2022, imposing service tax, penalty, and interest, and the subsequent attachment of bank accounts, are liable to be quashed on the grounds that the petitioner had already paid the service tax for the financial year 2014-15 and was not afforded a proper opportunity of hearing? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and the validity of the impugned orders). Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the ex-parte order and subsequent attachment were erroneous as all service taxes for the financial year 2014-15 had been paid. They sought a direction for a fresh proceeding with a personal hearing and release of attached accounts. Respondents' contentions: The respondents argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had bypassed alternative remedies available under the law.