M/S. Wisely Online Services Private Limited vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Central Tax

Held

The Court allowed the petition in part. It quashed the Order-in-Original dated 16.11.2021 and the Garnishee Notice dated 24.06.2026. The Court reasoned that the petitioner may have a valid defense regarding its services being exempt from service tax and could demonstrate sufficient cause for its non-participation due to the change of address. The Court opined that the petitioner should be given another opportunity to present its case. The Court directed the petitioner to file a response to the Show Cause Notice by 06.11.2026. The first respondent was directed to furnish a copy of the Show Cause Notice to the petitioner and provide a reasonable opportunity to file a response. All questions were left open for consideration. The ratio decidendi is that a party should not be deprived of an opportunity to present its case, especially when there are arguable grounds and procedural lapses, and principles of natural justice warrant a fresh adjudication.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Wisely Online Services Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Original (OIO) dated 16.11.2021 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax (Respondent No. 1). The petitioner also challenged a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 23.12.2020 issued by Respondent No. 1, and a Garnishee Notice (Form GST DRC-13) dated 24.06.2026 issued by Respondent No. 2 to the petitioner's banker, Axis Bank (Respondent No. 3). The petitioner claimed it had relocated its office from Bengaluru to Guwahati in 2019 and may not have received the SCN and personal hearing notices at its old address. The petitioner stated it received only the OIO after the Garnishee Notice was served on its bank and requested a copy of the SCN and other notices. The amount in dispute is not explicitly stated, but Rs. 39,71,853/- was recovered from the petitioner's bank account.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted another opportunity to present its case against the confirmation of the propositions in the Show Cause Notice, which was allegedly based on information furnished by the CBDT? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under the GST Act). Petitioner's Arguments: - The petitioner is engaged in the export of services, with consideration received in foreign currency outside India, and the consideration received within India is below the threshold, thus not requiring registration under the Finance Act, 1994. - The petitioner relocated its office in 2019, and notices might have been sent to the old address, leading to non-receipt and inability to respond. - The petitioner requested a copy of the SCN and other notices after receiving the Garnishee Notice but was only provided with the OIO. - Relied on a coordinate bench's decision in M/s. Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust Vs. Joint Commissioner of Central Tax (W.P. No.11154/2023) where proceedings were restored. Revenue's Arguments: - The judgment records no specific arguments from the revenue side regarding the petitioner's contentions.