M/S.V Hunt Digital Media Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner Central

Facts

M/s. V Hunt Digital Media Private Limited (the petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging an order-in-original dated December 29, 2022, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Tax (respondent No. 1). The order pertained to the assessment period 2015-2017 and confirmed a service tax demand of Rs. 13,75,861/-, along with penalty and interest. The petitioner contended that they did not receive a show cause notice, preventing them from defending their case, and that details submitted via email were not considered. The respondents suggested remanding the matter for a fresh order.

Held

The Court set aside the order-in-original dated December 29, 2022. The Court reasoned that the petitioner's contention regarding the non-receipt of a show cause notice and the non-consideration of their submissions indicated a violation of natural justice. The Court accepted the respondents' suggestion to remand the matter. The impugned order was to be construed as a show cause notice, and the petitioner was granted three weeks to file a reply. Following the reply, the Assistant Commissioner was directed to provide a personal hearing and pass a fresh order within six weeks. The ratio decidendi is that an assessment order passed without affording the assessee an opportunity to be heard, by not issuing a show cause notice or considering their submissions, is liable to be set aside on grounds of violating principles of natural justice. The operative direction was to remand the matter for fresh adjudication.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned assessment order dated December 29, 2022, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Tax, is contrary to the principles of natural justice for want of a show cause notice and non-consideration of petitioner's submissions, thereby violating Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that they did not receive a show cause notice, which is a violation of natural justice, and therefore, they were unable to present their defense. They also claimed that the details they provided via email were not considered by the adjudicating authority. Revenue's arguments: The respondents, based on instructions, submitted that the petitioner could be directed to appear before the Assistant Commissioner for the passing of a fresh order in accordance with law.