<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (4) TMI 1192 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769278</link>
    <description>Patna HC allowed writ application challenging service tax recovery order on grounds of natural justice violation. Petitioner received show cause notice in October 2021, but no hearing occurred for two years. When hearing was finally scheduled in January 2024, petitioner&#039;s representative appeared but adjudicating authority failed to fix proper subsequent hearing dates or maintain adequate records as required under Central Excise Act Section 33A and CBEC circular provisions. HC found statutory requirements for personal hearing opportunities were not complied with, set aside the impugned order, and remitted matter back to adjudicating authority with directions to provide four weeks&#039; time for document submission and proper hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2025 09:09:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=816561" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (4) TMI 1192 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769278</link>
      <description>Patna HC allowed writ application challenging service tax recovery order on grounds of natural justice violation. Petitioner received show cause notice in October 2021, but no hearing occurred for two years. When hearing was finally scheduled in January 2024, petitioner&#039;s representative appeared but adjudicating authority failed to fix proper subsequent hearing dates or maintain adequate records as required under Central Excise Act Section 33A and CBEC circular provisions. HC found statutory requirements for personal hearing opportunities were not complied with, set aside the impugned order, and remitted matter back to adjudicating authority with directions to provide four weeks&#039; time for document submission and proper hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769278</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>