Service tax show cause notices: limitation, suppression and exemption claims must be tested in adjudication first.

Writ petitions challenging service tax show cause notices were not entertained at the notice stage because the petitioners had an adequate remedy in adjudication. The limitation plea under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 was treated as only partly available, since the return due-date chart indicated that only part of the proposed demand could fall beyond five years. The absence of registration and failure to file returns also weakened the argument that the notices were barred for want of suppression. The claimed exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST, its withdrawal, and the later statutory and clarificatory measures were treated as requiring factual proof of compliance before the adjudicating authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions challenging the show cause notices could be entertained on the grounds of limitation, absence of suppression, and exemption under the service tax notifications, or whether the petitioners should be relegated to the statutory adjudicatory process.

Analysis: The challenge was examined against the limitation scheme under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 and the relevant return-filing framework under Rule 7 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. It was found, on the chart of return due dates, that only a part of the proposed demand could be said to be beyond the five-year period, and not the entire demand. The Court also noted that the petitioners had neither obtained registration nor filed returns, which negatived the plea that the notices were barred for want of suppression. The exemption regime under Notification No. 25/2012-ST, its withdrawal by Notification No. 6/2015-ST, the statutory intervention under Section 102 of the Finance Act, 2016, and the clarificatory Notification No. 9/2016-ST were considered as creating a conditional exemption which required the petitioners to establish compliance before the adjudicating authority. The Court further indicated that the petitioners had an adequate opportunity to place all factual and legal contentions, including the limited time-bar plea and the effect of the exemption notifications, before the respondents in reply to the notices.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not entertained on merits at the stage of show cause notices, and the petitioners were directed to submit replies and participate in the adjudication process.

---