TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 629
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellant herein had availed of the appellate remedy beyond the statutory period and thus exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not warranted. 2. The appellant is a partnership firm, registered under the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant was engaged in Advertising Agency Services. It was noticed during the assessment year 2015-16, the appellant had neither filed the returns in ST-3 nor discharged its service tax liability. Thus, on the basis of the income that was declared under the Income Tax Act, 1961, a show cause notice in SCN.No.26-2019-ADC dated 07.11.2019 came to be issued, wherein it was proposed to levy service tax of Rs. 72,55,238/-. 3. The appellant submitted its reply in resp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....containing amongst other the said OIO. (b) The Appellants nor any of their partners were aware of the receipt of the OIO until the notice of demand dated 30.01.2023 (copy enclosed as Annexure-IV) was served on them. (c) Thereafter, the Appellants sought details under RTI Act (copy enclosed as Annexure-V) with respect to the following: 1) Date of passing the Order-in-original No.16/2021-JC by the Joint Commissioner of GST & CE, Chennai South Commissionerate. 2) When was the document (mentioned to point (1) above) dispatched. 3) When was the document (mentioned to point (1) above) delivered to the assessee and the name of the person who has received the same? 4) Copy of document supporting point (3) (above)? 5) In case of delay ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appellate authority/respondent herein reads as under: "7. No relaxation in time can be given beyond statutorily applicable period as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Singh Enterprises [2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.)] ..... 8. Further, I am not going into the merits of the case, in view of the findings given above. In support, I rely on the following decision held by the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Medsave Health Insurance vs ACIT, CPC, TDS, Ghaziabad in ITA Nos.1027, 10218 & 1014 to 1016/Del/2022 dated 29.03.2022, which was passed by the ITAT relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Vijayeswari Textile Ltd vs. CIT (2002) (131 Taxman 833). In the said ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "Service of decisions, orders, summons, etc.- 37C. (1) Any decision or order passed or any summons or notices issued under this Act or the rules made thereunder, shall be served, - (a) by tendering the decision, order, summons or notice, or sending it by registered post with acknowledgment due [or by speed post with proof of delivery or by courier approved by the Central Board of Excise and Customs constituted under the Central Boards of Revenue Act, 1963 (54 of 1963)] to the person for whom it is intended or his authorised agent, if any; (b) if the decision, order, summons or notice cannot be served in the manner provided in clause (a), by affixing a copy thereof to some conspicuous part of the factory or warehouse or other place of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of other partners, and thus service on any of the partners would be adequate and valid service on the appellant firm [N.Khadervali Saheb and another vs. N.Gudusahib and others, (2003) 3 SCC 229.], however, the service on the daughter of a partner cannot be a valid service unless she is an authorised agent of the Firm in terms of Sub-section (1) to Section 37 C of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, there is no finding, rather it is not even the case of the revenue that Ms.Vaibhavi, daughter of one of the partners, on whom the Order in Original dated 31.03.2021 was served is an authorised agent, for the purposes of Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The onus is on the revenue to sho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t it simultaneously also dispatched the Order to the Appellant by registered post with acknowledgment due. 7. It is an anathema in law to decide a matter without due notice to the concerned party. Every effort must be taken to meaningfully and realistically serve the affected party so as not merely to ensure that he has knowledge thereof but also to enable him to initiate any permissible action. The Appellant justifiably submits that it was statutorily impermissible for the Respondents to serve the Adjudication Order on a "kitchen boy", who is not even a middle level officer and certainly not an authorized agent of the Appellant. The version of the Appellant that it learnt of the passing of the Adjudication Order dated 30.3.2012 only when....