Reverse charge liability and fresh adjudication were central where a tax demand was issued without examining the recipient-based levy plea.

A tax demand relating to transportation services for 2017-18 was discussed on the basis that liability may have fallen on the recipient under reverse charge, a material plea the adjudicating authority had not examined. The text also notes that the reply earlier filed was superficial and that delay in challenging the order led to conditional relief. The impugned order was treated as an addendum to the show cause notice, allowing a further reply and a fresh merits-based decision, subject to partial deposit before reopening.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned tax order could be set aside for non-consideration of the plea that the service was exigible, if at all, on a reverse charge basis in the hands of the recipient, and whether the matter should be reopened for fresh adjudication.

Analysis: The dispute concerned a tax demand for the 2017-18 period arising from transportation services. The reply already filed before the authority was found to be superficial, but the core plea was that the liability, under the relevant notification, prima facie appeared to fall on the recipient on a reverse charge basis. That aspect had not been examined in the impugned order. The challenge was also made after considerable delay, so relief was balanced by directing a partial deposit before reopening the assessment. The quashed order was directed to operate as an addendum to the show cause notice, enabling a fresh reply and a fresh decision on merits.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication, subject to deposit of 25% of the disputed tax and filing of a further reply within the stipulated time.

Final Conclusion: The assessee obtained limited relief in the form of reopening of the tax demand, while the revenue was preserved with a conditional deposit and a fresh merits-based determination.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a tax demand is passed without examining a material plea that liability may lie under reverse charge, the order can be set aside and the matter remitted for fresh decision, with equitable conditions imposed where delay is present.

---