2022 (4) TMI 203 - HC - Service Tax

Court rules in favor of petitioner due to lack of personal hearing, directs respondent to clarify position on pending appeals.

The court found in favor of the petitioner, acknowledging the lack of a personal hearing and the ex parte nature of the order-in-original. The court ... Validity of assessment order - ex-parte order - opportunity of personal hearing not provided - contravention to the revised guidelines, issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (Judicial Cell), dated 21.08.2020 - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- It is the contention of the petitioner that the issue raised vis-à-vis the subject assessment years [AYs] i.e., AYs 2013-2014, 2014-2015 and 2015-2016, is no different from that which arises from the demand-cum-show cause notice dated 23.04.2014, issued for the period spanning between 2008-2009 and 2012-2013. According to the petitioner, the adjudication carried out qua the demand- cum-show-cause notice dated 23.04.2014 resulted in the dropping of the entire amount of demand, save and except an amount equivalent to ₹ 91,91,814/-. The petitioner avers that an order-in-original in that behalf was passed on 19.06.2015. Against the said order, cross-appeals have been filed, which, according to the petitioner, are pending before Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). List the matter on 04.04.2022. Issues: Challenge to order-in-original, Lack of personal hearing, Ex parte order, Email communication, Assessment years comparison, Pending appeals before CESTAT.Challenge to order-in-original: The writ petition challenges the order-in-original dated 02.02.2021 passed by the Commissioner of Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST), Audit-II, Delhi. The petitioner alleges that the order was passed in violation of the revised guidelines issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (Judicial Cell) dated 21.08.2020, which mandated giving personal hearing to the assessee via video-conferencing. The petitioner claims that no such opportunity was provided to them, resulting in the order being passed ex parte without a hearing.Lack of personal hearing: The petitioner contends that the impugned order was passed without granting them a personal hearing, as required by the revised guidelines. They argue that the opportunity for a virtual hearing was not extended to them, leading to a violation of their right to be heard before the order was finalized.Ex parte order and Email communication: The petitioner asserts that the order-in-original was issued ex parte, without affording them a fair opportunity to present their case. The respondent's representative mentions that a notice was sent to the petitioner for a hearing scheduled on 09.12.2020, but the petitioner claims no such communication was received. The court questions the respondent's knowledge of the petitioner's email address and suggests that if the email had been available, the hearing intimation could have been sent along with the virtual hearing link.Assessment years comparison: The petitioner argues that the issues raised in the subject assessment years (AYs) 2013-2014, 2014-2015, and 2015-2016 are similar to those from a demand-cum-show cause notice dated 23.04.2014 covering the period between 2008-2009 and 2012-2013. They mention that previous adjudication related to the 2014 notice resulted in dropping most of the demand amount except for a specific sum. The petitioner states that cross-appeals regarding this matter are pending before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).Pending appeals before CESTAT: The court directs the respondent to provide instructions on how they intend to proceed further in light of the pending appeals before CESTAT. The case is listed for the next hearing on 04.04.2022 to address the unresolved issues and determine the appropriate course of action.