Court sets aside demand, directs reevaluation, stresses speaking order & fair process. Petitioner protected pending final decision.

The court found in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the impugned demand and directing the respondents to reconsider the case in accordance with the exemption notification. The judgment emphasized the necessity of issuing a speaking order after providing an opportunity for a personal hearing. The court also instructed that no adverse action should be taken against the petitioner until a final decision is reached. Additionally, the petitioner was allowed to provide supporting materials, particularly in instances where similar demands had been withdrawn by other authorities, underscoring the importance of consistency and fairness in tax assessments.

---

---

Issues:
1. Legality and validity of orders dated 25.03.2022 and 16.11.2022
2. Violation of provisions of Finance Act, 1994 and relevant circular
3. Non-consideration of provisions in Mega Exemption Notification No.25/2012
4. Jurisdiction of respondent No.5 in issuing summons
5. Impugned order dated 25.03.2022 for deposit against service tax
6. Response to impugned order and submission of written explanation
7. Issuance of demand cum show cause notices by respondent No.2
8. Exemption under Mega Exemption Notification No.25/2012
9. Compliance with Circular No.1053/02/2017-CX
10. Jurisdiction of respondent No.3 in passing impugned order
11. Territorial jurisdiction and factual position of contractual works
12. Setting aside the impugned demand and issuance of speaking order
13. Opportunity for personal hearing and consideration of exemption clauses
14. Representation regarding withdrawal of demand by Guwahati Range Commissioner

Analysis:
1. The petition challenges the legality and validity of orders dated 25.03.2022 and 16.11.2022, alleging violations of the Finance Act, 1994, and relevant circulars. The petitioner contends that respondent No.3 acted beyond jurisdiction by not considering the exemption provisions in Mega Exemption Notification No.25/2012, causing injustice.

2. Concerns arise regarding the jurisdiction of respondent No.5 in issuing summons and the subsequent impugned order dated 25.03.2022 demanding a substantial amount against service tax. The petitioner responded with a detailed submission, citing exemptions under the Finance Act, 1994.

3. Respondent No.2 issued demand cum show cause notices, prompting the petitioner to seek reconsideration based on the exemptions granted by the Mega Exemption Notification No.25/2012. The petitioner emphasized that the works executed fell under exempted services as per the notification.

4. Compliance with Circular No.1053/02/2017-CX is questioned as the petitioner was not provided with the requisite three opportunities of personal hearing before final adjudication. The respondent No.3's actions are deemed illegal and arbitrary.

5. The impugned order dated 16.11.2022 is challenged for being without jurisdiction, as the contractual works were executed under the territorial jurisdiction of respondent No.2. The order is considered perverse and lacking legal basis.

6. The judgment sets aside the impugned demand and directs the respondents to reconsider the case in light of the exemption notification, emphasizing the need for a speaking order after affording an opportunity for personal hearing. No adverse action is to be taken against the petitioner until a decision is made.

7. Notably, the petitioner is permitted to present materials supporting contentions, especially in cases where similar demands have been withdrawn by other authorities. This representation highlights the importance of consistency and fairness in tax assessments.

---