2024 (2) TMI 1085 - HC - Service Tax

Petition Dismissed: Failure to Attend Hearings and Provide Documents; Directed to Seek Redress Through Appellate Authority.

The court dismissed the petition challenging the service tax and penalty order, emphasizing the petitioner's failure to attend hearings and provide ... Exempt service or not - petitioner argued that the service tax imposed is on the services, which are exempted by virtue of the notification dated 20.06.2012, issued by the Government of India - failure to furnosh document to substantiate the same - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the impugned order indicates that except stating that the services rendered are exempted from service tax, the petitioner has not produced any documents to substantiate that the services rendered by him were exempted from service tax. Therefore, respondent No. 1, on the available material on record has rightly passed the impugned order after providing several opportunities of personal hearing to the petitioner, which the petitioner did not avail without any sufficient cause. Whether the services of the petitioner are exempted from service tax is a matter which requires consideration by the appellate authority, and since there is a dispute as to whether the services rendered by the petitioner are exempted from service tax, the same cannot be adjudicated in this petition, and it is open for the petitioner to approach the appellate authority for redressal of his grievances. The petition stands dismissed, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal under section 85 and 86 of the Finance Act. The time spent in prosecuting this petition to be excluded for the purpose of computation of limitation period in preferring the appeal before the appellate authority. Issues involved:The petition challenges an order holding the petitioner liable for service tax and penalty. The main contention is that the services rendered are exempted from service tax by a government notification, but the petitioner failed to provide necessary documents to substantiate this claim. The respondents argue that the petitioner did not respond adequately to notices and missed opportunities for personal hearings, leading to the issuance of the impugned order.Summary:The petitioner filed a petition challenging an order dated 22.09.2023, holding them liable for Rs. 1,85,76,423 towards service tax and penalty. The petitioner claimed that the services rendered were exempted from service tax by a government notification dated 20.06.2012. However, they failed to submit documents supporting this claim due to unavoidable circumstances. The petitioner sought to quash the order and have an opportunity to substantiate their claim before the 1st respondent.The respondents argued that the petitioner did not adequately respond to pre-conciliation and show cause notices. Despite claiming exemption from service tax, the petitioner did not provide any supporting documents. The respondents contended that the impugned order was passed under section 73 of the Finance Act, and the petitioner should have appealed under sections 85 and 86 before approaching the court.Upon considering the submissions, the court noted that the petitioner did not attend the pre-show cause notice for conciliation and failed to produce documents substantiating the exemption from service tax. The court found that the impugned order was passed after providing several opportunities for personal hearings, which the petitioner did not avail without sufficient cause. The court held that the matter of exemption from service tax should be considered by the appellate authority, and the petitioner could approach them for redressal.As a result, the petition was dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to file an appeal under sections 85 and 86 of the Finance Act. The time spent on the petition would be excluded for calculating the limitation period for filing the appeal. All contentions were kept open for further proceedings.