Service Tax Demand Quashed: Ineffective Alternate Remedy Leads to Procedural Fairness and Remand for Fresh Hearing

The HC found the alternate remedy inefficacious and quashed the order-in-original confirming service tax demand. The court remanded the matter to the 2nd Respondent, directing a fresh hearing and reasoned order within three months, considering NCLAT's previous modifications and relevant SC decisions. The rule was made absolute without costs, emphasizing procedural fairness in statutory proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order-in-original confirming demand of service tax, interest, and penalty; Efficacy of alternate remedy; Remand of matter to 2nd Respondent; Consideration of NCLAT's order and relevant decisions by 2nd Respondent

Analysis:
The Petitioner challenged the order-in-original dated 29 April 2022, confirming the demand of service tax, interest, and penalty. Despite having an alternate remedy, the court found it ineffectual due to the delay in the process. A personal hearing was granted to the Petitioner on 25 February 2021, and the impugned order was made on 29 April 2022, creating a situation where the alternate remedy would not be efficacious. The NCLAT modified a crucial direction in a previous order, necessitating the matter to be remanded to the 2nd Respondent, making the alternate remedy redundant in this case.

The record revealed that show cause notices were issued to the Corporate Debtor regarding service tax recovery. During the moratorium period, a resolution plan was submitted and accepted by the Committee of Creditors. The NCLT approved the resolution plan, but with a condition that statutory obligations/liabilities of the Corporate Debtor would not be waived. The Petitioner appealed this order before the NCLAT, which modified the direction related to extinguishing dues owed to the government entities not part of the resolution plan.

The court noted that the 2nd Respondent did not consider relevant decisions of the Supreme Court and the Court itself while making the impugned order. Therefore, the court quashed the order and remanded the matter to the 2nd Respondent for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need to consider the NCLAT's order and the cited decisions. The 2nd Respondent was directed to provide the Petitioner with a hearing and issue a reasoned order within three months. The rule in the Petition was made absolute, with no order for costs, and interim applications were disposed of.

In conclusion, the court set aside the impugned order, emphasizing the importance of considering relevant legal decisions and ensuring a fair and timely decision-making process by the 2nd Respondent.

---