2026 (3) TMI 441

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Aravind V. Chavan, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent-Authority. 2. This intra-court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, is filed by the petitioner- appellant, arising out of WP No. 6856/2025, calling in question the order dated 09.07.2025. The respondent had passed an order dated 17.12.2021 determining the service tax liability. The said order was challenged in Writ Petition No.8093/2022 on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice and on other grounds. 2.1 The learned Single Judge, by order dated 16.09.2022, set aside the order dated 17.12.2021 and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Pursuant to the remand, the respondent passed a fresh order dated 24.04.2024 dete....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as on the date of presentation of the writ petition, the appellant was residing at a different address. 3.1 It is further submitted that the appellant, in anticipation of a notice from the respondent, did not participate in the proceedings. Learned counsel would contend that, in the absence of the appellant's participation, the respondent proceeded to consider all the credits reflected in the bank account and levied service tax thereon, which is unsustainable in law. Hence, it is submitted that the order dated 24.04.2024 is in violation of the principles of natural justice. 4. Per contra, Sri Aravind V. Chavan, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent, submits that, pursuant to the remand, notice was issued to the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der that we propose to pass. 7. We are inclined to entertain this appeal only on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. The order dated 24.04.2024 has been passed without affording the appellant, an opportunity to be heard. The respondent is unable to dispute the fact that the appellant had shifted his residence as on the date on which notice was issued to the appellant. 8. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order dated 24.04.2024 and remit the matter to the respondent for fresh adjudication, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the appellant. 9. The order of the earlier remand was within the knowledge of the appellant. The appellant did ....