Shri. Pargi Narsimha Reddy vs. Ministry Of Finance

Facts

The petitioner, Shri. Pargi Narsimha Reddy, challenged an Order in Original dated November 20, 2023, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Central Tax, Ranga Reddy GST Commissionerate. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without effective service of notice, either physically or via email. He stated that one of his firms, M/s. Shresta Constructions, had become dysfunctional, and therefore, no returns were filed. Furthermore, he claimed to have settled service tax dues on work contracts for his other firm, M/s. Samhita Infrastructures, under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, filing Form No. SVL DRS-4 for relevant periods. The respondents, including the Ministry of Finance and GST authorities, did not provide instructions regarding the effective service of notice.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated November 20, 2023, was liable to be set aside primarily on the ground that the petitioner had not been afforded an effective opportunity of hearing. The Court noted that the learned Standing Counsel for the Department could not provide instructions regarding the effective service of notice, and the impugned order itself did not reflect any such endorsement. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the concerned authorities. The petitioner was directed to appear before the adjudicating authorities on April 15, 2024, to submit his submissions and objections. The adjudicating authority was instructed to proceed in accordance with the law, treating the Order in Original as a show cause notice, without requiring further notice. The Court allowed the writ petition to this extent.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Order in Original No. 48/2023-24-Adjn(ADC)-ST dated November 20, 2023, passed by the Additional Commissioner is liable to be set aside on the ground of non-service of proper notice to the petitioner, thereby violating principles of natural justice, under Article 14 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that no notice was effectively served upon him, either physically or via email, prior to the passing of the impugned order. He further contended that one of his firms, M/s. Shresta Constructions, had been dysfunctional for a long time, and no returns were filed for it. He also asserted that service tax dues for M/s. Samhita Infrastructures were settled under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme. He relied on the lack of response from the department regarding notice service and the absence of any endorsement of effective service in the impugned order. Revenue's arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the revenue regarding the service of notice. However, the learned Standing Counsel for the Department submitted that till the date of hearing, there were no instructions regarding the effective service of notice.