2017 (5) TMI 104 - HC - Service Tax

Court sets aside premature order, emphasizes natural justice, grants fresh hearing, stresses adherence to principles.

The court found that the order was passed prematurely, violating natural justice principles, as the petitioner was not given the opportunity to submit ... Natural justice - opportunity of being heard - the petitioner, has in fact appeared on 30.09.2016, with all the details and however, he was informed that already an order came to be passed on 29.09.2016 itself - Held that: it is evident that the petitioner's representative appeared on 20.09.2016 and sought for 10 days time for production of those documents and that the respondent has also granted such time. However, the fact remains that the impugned order came to be passed on the 9th day itself, viz.,29.09.2016 - the petitioner must be given one more final opportunity for placing all the materials, for the first respondent to consider and decide the matter on merits - matter is remitted back to the first respondent for passing a fresh order, after giving due opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner - appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues involved:Violation of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order without waiting for the petitioner to respond within the granted time.Analysis:The petitioner challenged an order passed by the first respondent without waiting for the petitioner to submit relevant documents within the granted time of 10 days. The petitioner obtained Service Tax Registration under maintenance or repair services. The first respondent issued a show cause notice demanding a differential service tax amount. The petitioner sought time to produce documents, but the order was passed before the deadline. The petitioner contended a violation of natural justice principles. The first respondent argued that no such time was granted. However, the impugned order indicated that the petitioner's representative sought 10 days for document submission, which was granted. The court found that the order was indeed passed prematurely, violating natural justice. The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order, and remitted the matter back to the first respondent for a fresh decision after giving the petitioner a final opportunity for a personal hearing.The court noted that the petitioner's representative had appeared and requested 10 days for document submission, which was acknowledged in the impugned order. Despite this, the order was issued prematurely. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to natural justice principles and granted the petitioner a final opportunity to present all materials for the first respondent's consideration. The court directed the first respondent to conduct a fresh hearing, make a decision based on merits, and issue a new order within four weeks. The court clarified that it had not expressed any view on the merits of the petitioner's claim, leaving it to the first respondent to decide. The court concluded by stating that no further time extensions would be granted and set a specific date for the petitioner to appear with all necessary documents.