2023 (9) TMI 1286 - HC - Service Tax

High Court overturns Service tax demands, orders fresh review within 3 months. Emphasis on fair hearing and legal arguments.

SIP Academy India Pvt Ltd., Represented by its Director Ms. Sarala Kulasekaran Versus The Additional Commissioner Office of the Principal Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise

The High Court set aside the impugned Order confirming Service tax demands in Show Cause Notices, remanding the matter for fresh orders within three ... Validity of SCN - Details called by petitioner not furnished - Invocation of extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The respondent was duty bound to inform the petitioner about the fate of Order in Appeal No.63 of 2010 (M-ST) dated 26.03.2010 as to whether the said order was appealed before the appellate Tribunal and whether the order of the Appellate Commissioner in Order in Appeal No.63 of 2010 (M-ST) dated 26.03.2010 which remanded back to the original authority was disturbed or not. The impugned order appears has to be passed in a hurried manner without furnishing the details called for by the petitioner, as is evident from reading of the impugned order. This Court is of the view that the impugned Order in Original was passed in hurried manner without furnishing the details to the petitioner and without hearing the petitioner. Considering the above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent/Additional Commissioner herein to pass fresh orders on merits, after hearing the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Petition allowed by way of remand. Issues:The case involves the confirmation of proposals in Show Cause Notices regarding Service tax demands for different periods. The issues include invoking a larger period of limitation, applicability of exemption notifications, disputed facts, and the hurried passing of the impugned order without providing necessary details to the petitioner.Confirmation of Proposals in Show Cause Notices:The impugned Order confirmed the proposals in Show Cause Notices for various periods, demanding Service tax from the petitioner under 'Commercial Coaching Service.' The petitioner contested that the first show cause notice invoked a larger period of limitation based on the ground of providing franchise service. The petitioner referred to past decisions and a Supreme Court case to argue against the limitation period.Coverage of Commercial Coaching Services:Regarding the demand confirmed in the rest of the Show Cause Notices, the petitioner argued that the issue of providing 'Commercial Coaching Services' was already settled by a Tribunal decision, which was accepted by the department. The petitioner claimed entitlement to exemption under specific notifications.Failure to Provide Details and Grant Time:The petitioner highlighted that the impugned order was passed without granting time for a personal hearing and without providing details requested by the petitioner regarding previous tribunal decisions. The petitioner also mentioned partial payment made against a demand that was time-barred.Disputed Facts and Remand Order:The respondent argued that there were disputed facts, especially concerning receipts brought to tax, which needed to be decided by the Appellate Commissioner and Tribunal. The impugned order was criticized for being hurriedly passed without furnishing necessary details to the petitioner.Judgment:The High Court set aside the impugned Order and remanded the matter back to the Additional Commissioner for fresh orders on merits within three months, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing and submission of legal arguments. The Court noted the lack of details provided to the petitioner and the hurried nature of the previous order. No costs were awarded in this decision.