Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2017 (9) TMI 700

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 20,41,386/- towards service tax payable by the petitioner in respect of a works contract undertaken by him for the period 2010-11. 2. Heard Mr. T.V.L. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.Narayana Reddy, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for the respondents. 3. The Order-in-Original, which is challenged by the petitioner, is actually dated 28-8-2013. The petitioner has come up with a challenge to the Order-in-Original dated 28-8-2013, only after the respondents issued a garnishee notice on 01-6-2017. The claim of the petitioner in the writ petition is that the Order-in-Original was never served on the petitioner and that therefore the petitioner was completely in the dark until a garnishee notice wa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ngs before the Additional Commissioner throughout. The show cause notice dated 21-12-2012 was admittedly served on the petitioner and the petitioner attended personal hearing on 24-7-2013. The petitioner claims, in paragraph-4 of the Affidavit in support of the writ petition that he also submitted written submissions to the 2nd respondent on 24-7-2013. It is only thereafter that the impugned Order-in-Original was passed on 28-8-2013. 7. It is too hard to believe that a person who participated in the personal hearing on 24-7-2013 and submitted written arguments on the same date, got into a sense of false security as though no Order-in-Original could have been passed for four years thereafter. 8. The contention that service of an Order-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing that the Order-in-Original was served on the assessee, is discharged by the Revenue. Thereafter, the burden shifts to the assessee to show that despite the entry in the online tracking system, they did not receive the copy of the order. 11. In this regard, it will be relevant to take note of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which reads as follows: 27. Meaning of service by post.Where any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act authorizes or requires any document to be served by post, whether the expression serve or either of the expressions give or send or any other expression is used, then, unless a different intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing....