2025 (6) TMI 2034

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by the Commissioner, GST & CX Commissionerate, Rourkela-Opposite Party No.1 in respect of Financial Years 2015-16 and 2016-17 invoking Section 73 of Chapter-V of the Finance Act, 1994 raising demand of service tax to the tune of Rs.5,76,99,511/-, besides penalties under Sections 77 & 78 and interest under Section 75, the Petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Sri Bijay Panda, learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner, Proprietor having business in the name and style M/s. GNR Construction executed works contract as sub-contractor during the periods 2015-16 & 2016-17. Though the Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....te for the purpose of assessment, but the Petitioner did not choose to appear before the authority concerned, as a result of which the Commissioner, GST & CX Commissionerate, Rourkela had to pass ex-parte Assessment Order dated 02.07.2024. Therefore, no procedural lapses can be imputed against the authority concerned in passing the order dated 02.07.2024 (Annexure-1). 4. Heard Mr. Bijay Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Sujan Kumar Roy Choudhury, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the CGST, CX and Customs Department-Opposite Parties. 5. Perusal of record and scrutiny of documents available on record reveals no dispute on facts so far as short point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5.1. Th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssed by the Commissioner, GST & CX, Rourkela Commissionerate. However, he did not dispute the fact stated in the acknowledgement receipt (Annexure-4) that the Postal Department could not serve notices issued from the Office of the Commissioner, GST & Central Excise Commissionerate, Rourkela on the petitioner by citing that "addressee cannot be located". 5.5. Thus, the factual position makes it clear that Assessment Order dated 02.07.2024 was passed without examination of documents or analysing evidence of the petitioner. However, from scrutiny of Assessment Order dated 12.07.2024 (Annexure-3), it transpires that in response to show cause notice issued by the Commissioner (Audit) the petitioner appeared and on consideration of the merit o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t of Respondent 5 given earlier, the adjudicating authority had dropped the proceedings accepting the explanation furnished. In view thereof, CESTAT has held that there could not have been second show-cause notice on the same cause of action. In this behalf we do not find any error in the order passed by CESTAT." 5.9. This Court observes that when multiple assessment orders exist for the same assessment year in respect of same assessee with respect to identical subject-matter, the order that addresses the merits of the case generally takes precedence over an ex-parte order (an order issued in the absence of the taxpayer). This is because an ex-parte order is typically made without considering the taxpayer's arguments, evidence, or object....