TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1442
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ief, are that an enquiry was initiated by the Preventive Wing of CGST, Ahmedabad on the allegation that the appellant had received certain services from foreign service provider in Financial Years 2014-15 and 2015-16 on which they were liable to pay service tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism. The appellant paid service tax alongwith interest and penalty vide challan No. 50020 for an amount of Rs. 3,46,342/- on the advice of the department, voluntarily and in bonafide belief that the same was payable. Thereafter, the appellant came to know that they were not liable to pay service tax on services received from abroad as per Rule 3 of Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012. Since, the service providers are located outside India, the place ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t as service tax was never paid by them and only a deposit was made by them. He has contended that the appeal may be allowed and the impugned order dated 24.11.2021 passed by learned Commissioner (Appeals) may be rejected. 3.1 The learned Counsel for the appellant cited the ruling of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Pavneet Oberoi vs. The Commissioner of Customs reported in 2025-TIOL-1918-HC-DEL-CUS in which the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has observed that oral waiver of Show Cause Notice or personal hearing cannot satisfy the mandatory requirements of Section 124 and violates principles of natural justice. The bench held that law laid down in earlier Delhi High Court judgments and the Supreme Court decision in Jatin Ahuja makes cle....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 73(3) of Chapter 5 of Finance Act, 1994 and as per the instructions contained in Board's letter F. No. 137/46/2015-Service Tax dated 18.08.2015. The Show Cause Notice may not be issued to them in the case. Paragraph 6 of the impugned order is being reproduced below:- "6. It is observed that the service tax amount, for which refund is claimed by the appellant, came to be paid by them during the course of an inquiry initiated against them by the department. The appellant had paid the amount of service tax involved in the impugned transactions along with interest and penalty and informed the same to the department vide their letter dated 29.08.2019 and requested that in terms of provision of Section 73(3) of Chapter 5 of Finance A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issuing a notice in the matter, which is not possible now as such a notice would be hit by the provision of limitation for issue involved in the matter being pertaining to the period of 2014-15 and 2015-16. It was for the appellant's request for closing the proceedings under the provision of Section 73(3) ibid that the department had to close the proceedings initiated by it against them. It was a quid pro quo act on the part of the department not to proceed with the proceedings." 5.2 It is pertinent to reproduce the provisions of Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994, which reads as under:- "(3) Where any service tax has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded, the person charg....