Petitioner directed to remit service tax despite incorrect address acknowledgment

The court found that despite the incorrect address, the petitioner had acknowledged receiving all communications, including the show cause notice and subsequent letters. The court directed the petitioner to remit the service tax within two months and allowed the respondent to address the withholding of the amount. The petitioner's request to pay the service tax and deduct the withheld amount was considered, with the court leaving it to the respondent to handle the deduction matter with Neyveli Lignite Corporation. The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and the related miscellaneous petition was closed.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to order dated 19.3.2010 and notice of demand dated 27.9.2014 regarding service tax arrears.
2. Allegation of not receiving show cause notice and notice of demand due to wrong address.
3. Contentions regarding acknowledgment of notices by the petitioner.
4. Request for permission to pay service tax and deduction of withheld amount.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the show cause notice and notice of demand, claiming non-receipt due to a wrong address. The petitioner argued that the notices should be set aside as they were not served at the correct address. The respondent contended that all communications, including the show cause notice and subsequent letters, were sent to the address mentioned, which was acknowledged by the petitioner with a rubber stamp.

2. The learned Senior Standing Counsel produced the original file, demonstrating that the show cause notice and subsequent communications were indeed sent to the address provided by the petitioner. The acknowledgment of these letters by the petitioner with a rubber stamp was presented as evidence that the petitioner had received the notices despite the wrong address. The respondent argued that the petitioner's claim of non-receipt was unfounded based on the acknowledgments.

3. The court examined the evidence presented and noted that all correspondence, despite the incorrect address, had been acknowledged by the petitioner. Additionally, the petitioner had written a letter expressing willingness to deposit the service tax. The court directed the petitioner to remit the service tax for the specified period within two months, allowing the respondent to address the withholding of the amount by the 2nd respondent.

4. The petitioner's request to pay the service tax and deduct the withheld amount was considered, with the court directing the petitioner to remit the service tax within a specified timeframe. The court left it to the respondent to address the matter of deduction with the Neyveli Lignite Corporation. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, with no costs imposed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

---