2017 (5) TMI 104

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... formal party, to whom the petitioner has provided some service. 3. By consent of parties, the main writ petition is taken for final disposal, since the issue involved in this case lies in a narrow campus. 4. The petitioner got registered and obtained Service Tax Registration under the category of maintenance or repair service . The first respondent issued a show cause notice on 14.10.2015, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why an amount of Rs. 47,35,914/- should not be demanded as differential service tax amount payable for the period from 2010-11 to 2013-14. The petitioner vide letter dated 16.10.2015, citing some health grounds, sought 30 days time to appear with particulars. Accordingly, the personal hearing fixed on....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rsonal hearing was given to the petitioner and adjourned such hearing on two occasions at the instance of the petitioner, he cannot make a complaint that he was not given an opportunity of personal hearing. 7. Heard both sides. 8. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the first respondent has passed the impugned order without even waiting for the petitioner to respond within the time of 10 days as granted on 20.09.2016, for production of material documents viz., invoices, agreements and receipts. The petitioner also filed a Rectification Application on 14.11.2016, wherein he has specifically stated that his representative appeared on 30.09.2016 with relevant documents and however, he was informed that the order....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s received." 10. Therefore, it is evident that the petitioner's representative appeared on 20.09.2016 and sought for 10 days time for production of those documents and that the respondent has also granted such time. However, the fact remains that the impugned order came to be passed on the 9th day itself, viz.,29.09.2016. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the first respondent has not waited for the petitioner to submit those materials within the time granted and therefore, the impugned order violates the principles of natural justice. 11. Considering the above stated facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner must be given one more final opportunity for placing all the materials, fo....