Court quashes order, remits for fresh consideration. Emphasizes procedural compliance.

The court allowed the writ application, quashing the impugned order dated 21.10.2020 and the recovery notice dated 17.12.2020. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration with instructions to provide a notice for a hearing and pass a final order in accordance with the law. The court emphasized procedural compliance with statutory provisions and did not address the merits of the case.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order dated 21.10.2020 issued by Respondent No.2.
2. Violation of principles of natural justice due to lack of personal hearing.
3. Legality of the recovery notice dated 17.12.2020 and attachment of the factory premises.
4. Non-compliance with Section 75(4) and Section 78 of the CGST Act, 2017.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the order dated 21.10.2020 issued by Respondent No.2:
The writ applicant, a public limited company, challenged the order dated 21.10.2020, which fixed the liability to pay service tax along with penalties. The operative part of the order stated that any lease or license to occupy land is a supply of service under the SGST and CGST Acts of 2017, and the real estate services provided by the assessee were liable to tax at 9% SGST and 9% CGST. The applicant received consideration of Rs. 7,12,12,150/-, and the taxable value of supply of services was calculated accordingly, including interest and penalties.

2. Violation of principles of natural justice due to lack of personal hearing:
The primary issue raised by the writ applicant was that no opportunity for a personal hearing was provided before the impugned order was passed, which is a violation of the principles of natural justice. Although the respondent claimed that ample opportunities were given, the court found that there was no clear evidence of a specific notice for a personal hearing. Section 75(4) of the CGST Act mandates an opportunity for a hearing where a request is made in writing by the person chargeable with tax or penalty.

3. Legality of the recovery notice dated 17.12.2020 and attachment of the factory premises:
The writ applicant also challenged the recovery notice dated 17.12.2020, which included the attachment of the factory premises under Section 79 of the CGST Act, 2017. The court noted that no recovery proceedings could be initiated before the expiry of three months from the date of service of the order, as per Section 78 of the Act. In this case, the attachment was initiated within one month, violating the statutory provision.

4. Non-compliance with Section 75(4) and Section 78 of the CGST Act, 2017:
The court emphasized the importance of compliance with statutory provisions, particularly Sections 75(4) and 78 of the CGST Act. Section 75(4) requires granting an opportunity for a hearing, and Section 78 stipulates a three-month period before initiating recovery proceedings. The court found that these provisions were not adhered to, justifying the quashing of the impugned orders.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ application, quashing the impugned order dated 21.10.2020 and the recovery notice dated 17.12.2020. The matter was remitted to Respondent No.2 for fresh consideration, with instructions to issue a notice for a hearing and to pass a final order in accordance with the law. The court clarified that it had not addressed the merits of the case but focused on the procedural lapse regarding the opportunity for a hearing. The writ application was disposed of accordingly.

---