TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 1757
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... slot in the electronic media and selling the same to various clients; A Show Cause Notice dated 07.09.2018, demanding Service Tax of Rs. 1,06,66,028/- along with interest and penalty, covering the period 2012-13 to 2015-16, was issued to the appellant; demand, interest and penalty were confirmed vide Order-in-Original dated 26.03.2021; on an appeal filed by the appellant, the Commissioner (Appeals), vide Order-in-Appeal dated 04.07.2022, set aside the Original Order, holding that the demand of service tax was not sustainable; consequentially, the appellant filed an application for refund of the pre-deposit of Rs. 8,00,000/- made by them; the original authority though sanctioned the refund, vide order dated 07.09.2022, appropriated the same....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wards the amount, which has not even been held to be confirmed arrears, was done without giving any notice to the appellant; the appellant was denied the opportunity to represent their case even if recovery was initiated. He relies on the judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Gayatri Agencies vs. STO in W.P. No. 5750 of 2023 & W.M.P. No. 5747 of 2023, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held as under: "5. Section 75(4) of the GST Act 2017 makes it clear that in cases, where an adverse decision is taken by the Assessing Officer against the assessee, personal hearing is mandatory. Admittedly, in the assessment proceedings, pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18, no personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner. This being....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Rs 34,29,518, was not maintainable. (iii). ST/60258/2023 (Party's Appeal): - filed against Order-in-Appeal dated 05.01.2023, which dismissed appellant's appeal against Order-in-Original dated 08.09.2022, which appropriated Rs 8,00,000/- under Section 79 of the CGST, Act,2017. This is the instant appeal. 6. Learned Authorized Representative further submits that it will be in the interest of justice that all the three appeals be taken up together. His alternative submission would be that as the appellant prays that the principles of natural justice have been violated, the matter may be remanded to the Original Authority for a fresh consideration as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Saral Wire Craft Pvt Ltd reported as 2015 (322....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t is a clear case of violation of principles of Natural justice. Revenue also argues that the action having been taken under section 79 of the CGST Act,2017, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. I find that this Bench vide interim order dated 22.02.2024 held that the objection regarding the jurisdiction is over-ruled. However, I am of the considered opinion that that was only an interim order. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, the violation of principles of natural justice, in a matter concerning the implementation of the Finance Act, 1994, is of a primary and immediate concern of the Bench. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the issue of Jurisdiction can be agitated and decided at a more....