Court dismisses writ petition challenging service tax demand for 2016-17, upholds lack of response to show-cause notice.

The Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the order confirming a service tax demand for the assessment period 2016-17. The petitioner's contentions regarding non-receipt of notice for personal hearing and absence of service tax evasion were not upheld. The Court found the lack of response to the show-cause notice insufficient to establish a violation of natural justice warranting intervention under Article 226. The order-in-original was deemed appealable under Section 85 of the Finance Act, directing the petitioner to pursue remedies through the appellate process while maintaining neutrality on the substantive issues.

---

---

Issues Involved:
Challenge to order confirming service tax demand, validity of notice for personal hearing, evasion of service tax, applicability of extended limitation period, principles of natural justice, jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, appealability of the order-in-original.

Analysis:
The writ petition challenged the order-in-original confirming a service tax demand of Rs.14,00,396.00 for the assessment period 2016-17 under the proviso to Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The order also imposed interest and penalty. The petitioner contended non-receipt of notice for personal hearing and absence of service tax evasion, arguing against the applicability of the extended limitation period of five years and alleging double taxation.

Respondents countered, stating that notices for personal hearing were sent to the petitioner's address provided in the petition, with four served and two returned undelivered. The petitioner failed to respond to the show-cause notice despite receipt. The petitioner attributed the lack of response to the COVID-19 situation, which the Court did not find sufficient to establish a violation of natural justice warranting Article 226 intervention. The Court noted the appealable nature of the order-in-original under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, directing the petitioner to pursue remedies through the appellate process without expressing any opinion on the merits, keeping all contentions open.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the writ petition without costs, emphasizing the availability of appeal as a proper recourse. The judgment clarified that no opinion on the substantive issues was rendered, maintaining neutrality on the merits of the case. Any related miscellaneous petitions were also dismissed as a consequential outcome of the main judgment.

---