Ratul Katoky And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIA And 5 Ors.

Held

The Court acknowledged the petitioner's grievance regarding the non-receipt of prior notice. While the respondent authorities asserted that notice was sent, they could not substantiate the petitioner's actual receipt of it. Given this lack of proof, the Court agreed to set aside the impugned order dated 28.03.2014 without insisting on its validity. Instead, the Court directed a procedural re-commencement. The petitioner is to appear before the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Dibrugarh Division, on 02.09.2019, where they will be provided with a copy of the original show-cause notice. Subsequently, the petitioner must reappear on 16.09.2019, to present their reply and participate in proceedings, after which an appropriate order will be passed. The ratio decidendi is that principles of natural justice, including the right to be heard, must be strictly adhered to, and authorities must demonstrate actual notice was received, not just dispatched.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Ratul Katoky, an assessee registered under the Finance Act, 1994, and Service Tax Rules, 1994, is engaged in contract works for ONGC. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 28.03.2014 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax Division, Jorhat. The petitioner's sole contention is that no prior notice was received before the impugned order was issued. The respondent authorities claimed that due notice was sent, but failed to produce material evidence of the petitioner's actual receipt of the notice. Consequently, the parties agreed to a procedural resolution.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 28.03.2014 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax Division, Jorhat, is vitiated due to non-receipt of prior notice by the petitioner, as contemplated under the relevant provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 and Service Tax Rules, 1994? The petitioner argued that the impugned order is bad in law as it was passed without affording them an opportunity of being heard, which is a fundamental principle of natural justice, and that they never received the show-cause notice. The respondent authorities contended that due notice was indeed sent to the petitioner. However, they failed to provide any proof of actual receipt of the notice by the petitioner.