2025 (5) TMI 1757

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t space booked in the print media or time 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 orde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....79 of the CGST Act, of the refunded amount towards 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 persona....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gainst, Order-in-Original dated 24.03.2022, confirming the duty demand 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 H....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er way, the appellant was denied an opportunity to present their case in defence against the proposed action. It 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.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....2022 against which the recovery was contemplated in the refund sanction order dated 07.09.2022. I find that this is a serious breach of Principles of Natural Justice. I find that the appellants have been denied an opportunity to represent against the action proposed to be taken against them and to appeal against the order that saddles them with a demand of Service Tax. I find that such an order can not be sustained and requires to be set aside. 11. I find that in both the cases, relied upon by the appellant as well as by the learned Authorized Representative for the department, i.e., Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saral Wire Craft Pvt Ltd (supra) and Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Gayatri Agencies (supra), under similar ....