Md. Samsuddin Ahmed vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 Ors

Held

The Court held that it would be inappropriate to delve into the factual dispute of whether the tax was paid under Article 226 of the Constitution, especially given the revenue's submission that the petitioner had not fully cooperated or produced all relevant materials. The Court considered the revenue's willingness to grant a fresh hearing. Therefore, the Joint Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Dibrugarh, was directed to provide a fresh hearing to the petitioner on March 28, 2022, at 10:30 AM. The petitioner was to be allowed to produce all relevant materials to substantiate their claim of having paid the tax and to raise any other issues. A reasoned order was to be passed, superseding the impugned demand-cum-show-cause notice. No coercive action was to be taken against the petitioner until the reasoned order was passed.

Facts

The petitioner, Md. Samsuddin Ahmed, proprietor of M/s S. Ahmed and Co., a registered contractor providing manpower supply services to Oil India Limited, is aggrieved by a demand-cum-show-cause notice dated September 29, 2020, issued by the Joint Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Dibrugarh. The notice alleged willful suppression of material facts to evade service tax amounting to Rs. 1,46,41,544/-. The petitioner contended that they had paid all applicable service tax and that for certain periods, no tax was payable due to changes in law. The revenue argued that the notice was issued due to the petitioner's non-appearance at hearings and lack of cooperation. However, the revenue agreed to provide a fresh hearing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner had paid all the service tax payable under the law, including periods where changes in law exempted service providers from payment? (Question of fact and law, concerning the applicability of service tax provisions under the Finance Act, 1994). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner asserted that they had paid all necessary service tax and that for certain periods, no service tax was due to changes in the law. Revenue's arguments: The revenue contended that the demand-cum-show-cause notice was necessitated by the petitioner's failure to appear for hearings and cooperate with the authorities. However, the revenue conceded to granting the petitioner a fresh hearing to present all relevant materials.