Dismissed writ petitions challenging tax liability order citing lack of jurisdictional objections. Liberty to appeal granted.

The court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the show cause notice and order in original related to tax liability, emphasizing the petitioners' admission of tax liability and lack of jurisdictional objections raised in a timely manner. The court noted the petitioners' failure to provide evidence of denial of a fair hearing and dismissed the rectification application based on the admission of tax liability. Despite addressing a typographical error in the adjudicating order, the court upheld the decision, granting the petitioners the liberty to appeal within four weeks without limitation objections for further consideration by the appellate authority.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to show cause notice and order in original, jurisdiction of adjudicating authority, fair opportunity for submissions, admission of tax liability, rectification application dismissal, typographical error in adjudicating order, alternative remedy of appeal.

Analysis:

1. Challenge to Show Cause Notice and Order in Original: The petitioners challenged the show cause notice dated 21.04.2017 and the order in original dated 24.01.2018 passed by the respondent seeking other consequential reliefs. The notice related to the period from December 2012 to March 2016, questioning the service tax liability under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994.

2. Jurisdiction of Adjudicating Authority: The petitioners argued that the adjudicating authority had no jurisdiction to invoke Section 73 of the Act for transactions involving a turnover of more than Rs. 50 lakhs. They contended that no mandatory consultation period was provided, and the authority did not follow due process. However, the revenue argued that the admission of tax liability by the petitioners was sufficient to proceed with the final orders.

3. Fair Opportunity for Submissions: The petitioners claimed that they were not provided a fair opportunity to present their submissions, especially as the show cause notice was issued beyond the prescribed limitation period. They argued that even with the admission of tax liability, there is no estoppel against the law. The court noted that all grounds raised by the petitioners seemed to be an afterthought and that objections regarding jurisdiction should have been raised earlier.

4. Admission of Tax Liability: The court emphasized that the petitioners had admitted their tax liability in response to the show cause notice. The petitioners' subsequent rectification application was dismissed, with the court finding no fault in the authority's decision. The court highlighted that admission of tax liability does not necessarily entitle the petitioners to further opportunities as per the Government Order dated 10.03.2017.

5. Rectification Application Dismissal: The court noted that the rectification application referred to a circular emphasizing the need for a fair hearing, which the Adjudicating Authority allegedly did not address. However, the court found that the petitioners failed to provide material evidence to support their claim that an opportunity for a hearing was denied.

6. Typographical Error in Adjudicating Order: The court addressed a typographical error in the adjudicating order, clarifying the correct date of passing the order. The petitioners' attempt to capitalize on this error was dismissed since it did not affect the fact that a personal hearing was provided on the correct date.

7. Alternative Remedy of Appeal: The court ultimately dismissed the writ petitions but granted the petitioners the liberty to appeal within four weeks. The appellate authority was directed to consider the appeal without objecting to the limitation aspect and to decide the case on its merits in accordance with the law.

This comprehensive analysis covers the various issues raised in the legal judgment, outlining the arguments presented by both parties and the court's reasoning in each instance.

---