2020 (12) TMI 1126

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....These Writ Petitions are disposed of through Blue Jeans video conferencing App. 1) In Writ Petition No. 16315 of 2020, the Petitioner is an individual. The Petitioner in W.P. No. 16539 of 2020 is a Partnership Firm. Since the issues raised in both the Petitions are identical, the Writ Petitions are being disposed of by this Common Order. For the convenience of the Court, the facts in W.P. No. 16315 of 2020 are being taken for the purpose of disposal of these Writ Petitions. 2) The Petitioner, who is running a bus service claims that he received a notice, dated 20.03.2019, calling upon him to pay service tax of Rs. 7,83,856/- along with interest and penalty. The Petitioner is said to have addressed a letter, dated 01.05.2019, to the 5t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hese two grounds, the application of the Petitioner is said to have been rejected. 5) Sri Harish Kumar Rasineni, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that, in the absence of any reasons in the impugned order, it would suffer from violation of principles of natural justice, as the Petitioner was totally unaware of the reasons for the rejection. He further submits that the letter, dated 20.03.2019, was a genuine letter, which was received by the Petitioner and was the cause for moving the application under the Scheme. 6) Sri. M.V.J.K. Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents submits that, apart from the aforesaid two reasons given in the counter, the Petitioner was not eligible in the first instance, to have applied und....