2025 (3) TMI 1128 - HC - GST

Service Tax Order Overturned Due to Natural Justice Violation; Case Remitted for Fresh Consideration Under Mega Exemption

M/s Singh NICC (J.V) through its Manager Mr. Anil Kalra Versus The Union of India through its Principal Chief Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, B.C. Patel Path, Patna, Superintendent, Central GST and Central Excise, Superintendent, Central GST and Central GST Division Patiala-I

M/s Singh NICC (J.V) through its Manager Mr. Anil Kalra Versus The Union of India through its Principal Chief Commissioner of Central Excise and Service ... ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment include: Whether the order dated 20.03.2024 confirming the demand of service tax, including Cess, under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act 1994, and the subsequent recovery order under Section 73(2) of the same Act read with Section 174 of the CGST Act 2017, was valid, given the petitioner's claim of exemption under the Mega exemption notification no. 25/2012. Whether the imposition of interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act read with Section 174 of the CGST Act 2017 for delayed payment of service tax was justified. Whether the penalties imposed under Sections 78, 77(1)(a), and 77(1)(c) of the Finance Act 1994 read with Section 174 of the CGST Act 2017 were valid, considering the petitioner's alleged non-compliance and suppression of facts. Whether the principles of natural justice were violated due to the alleged non-consideration of the petitioner's defense reply to the show cause notice.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS1. Validity of Service Tax Demand and Exemption ClaimThe petitioner challenged the demand for service tax on the grounds of exemption under the Mega exemption notification no. 25/2012, which exempts services related to construction and maintenance of roads and bridges for public use. The relevant legal framework includes Section 73 of the Finance Act 1994, which deals with the recovery of service tax, and the Mega exemption notification that provides specific exemptions.The Court noted that the petitioner's defense, including the exemption claim, was not considered in the impugned order. The petitioner's submission of a reply to the show cause notice was not acknowledged, leading to a jurisdictional error. The Court emphasized the necessity of considering all submissions before passing an order.2. Imposition of Interest and PenaltiesThe petitioner contested the imposition of interest and penalties under Sections 75, 78, and 77 of the Finance Act 1994, arguing that the demand itself was unjustified due to the claimed exemption. The legal framework involves the provisions for interest on delayed payments and penalties for non-compliance and suppression of facts.The Court did not delve into the merits of these penalties and interest due to the procedural lapse identified. The failure to consider the petitioner's defense rendered the entire order, including penalties and interest, legally infirm.3. Principles of Natural JusticeA significant aspect of the case was the alleged violation of natural justice principles. The petitioner claimed that their defense reply was submitted via email as directed but was ignored in the impugned order. The Court found that the respondents did not deny the petitioner's claims regarding the submission of the reply.The Court concluded that the competent authority failed to consider the petitioner's defense, resulting in a violation of natural justice. This procedural oversight necessitated the setting aside of the impugned order and a direction for fresh consideration.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Court held that the impugned order suffered from a violation of natural justice due to the non-consideration of the petitioner's defense reply. The Court stated: 'The reply submitted by the petitioner seems to have been forgotten and not considered by the competent authority while passing the impugned order.'The core principle established is the necessity for authorities to consider all submissions and defenses before passing orders, ensuring adherence to natural justice principles. The final determination was to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the competent authority for fresh consideration with an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard.