TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 986
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r, GST and Central Excise, Rourkela Commissionerate, Rourkela vide Annexure-7 and Demand-cum-Show-cause notices dated 23rd April, 2021 and 30th June, 2021 vide Annexure-4 under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 and the order dated 23rd June, 2025 rejecting the petition for rectification, in this writ petition. The petitioner beseeches to invoke power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for grant of following reliefs: "In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is humbly prayed that Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to: a) Quash and set aside the impugned Adjudication Order dated 04.07.2024, bearing No. 28-29/CCE/S.TAX/RKL/2024-25 issued from File: C.No. V(15)/84/S.Tax/Adjn/Commr/RKL/2021 (DIN 20240762WK000000C4B1) (Annexure-7), passed by the respondent no.1 in purported exercise of powers under section 73 and section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994, for the Financial Year 2015-16 to Financial Year 2016-17 as the same is without jurisdiction and is being contrary to the settled principles of law; b) Quash and set aside the impugned Show Case notices dated 23.04.2021 (unserved) and 30.06.2021 bearing C.No. V(15)84/S.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his jurisdiction by levying service tax on the turnover, which is not amenable to service tax at all in the State of Odisha. 3.1. He submitted that the petitioner was never executed any work inside the State of Odisha prior to 1st July, 2017. Since the petitioner has never executed any work within the State of Odisha prior to 1st July, 2017 and merely because it has been granted Registration Certificate on 6th January, 2019 specifying the date of liability "1st July, 2017", the demand raised in Order-in-Original dated 4th July, 2024 vide Annexure-7 is arbitrary, irrational and untenable in the eye of law. 4. Sri Bismaya Ananda Prusty, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite parties submitted that the proceeding for determination of tax liability was initiated based on data received from the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Based on such data, the Adjudicating Authority acting on such information regarding works contract being executed and consideration money being received by the petitioner, proceeded to raise demand on premise that the petitioner did not choose to get registered notwithstanding liability. 4.1. He referred to paragraphs-3.3 of Order-in-Ori....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Perused the material available on record. 7. On bare reading of the Order-in-Original dated 4th July, 2024 and demand-cum-show-cause notice dated 30th June, 2021 reveals that the petitioner having failed to get registered under Section 69 of the Chapter-V of the Finance Act, 1994, the proceeding of determination of tax liability was initiated. As the petitioner did not appear before the authority concerned, the demand-cum-show cause notice was affirmed on the basis of the information received from the Income Tax Department with respect to consideration being received on account of service rendered with respect to execution of works contract. As is apparent from the record that the Adjudicating Authority has not made any independent inquiry based on the information received from the Income Tax Department. It is apparent from the Registration Certificate issued in Form GST REG-06 under the GST Act that the petitioner was granted such certificate on 6th January, 2019 with date of liability fixed on 1st July, 2017, i.e., the date of introduction of the Goods and Services Tax Act. 8. Since the adjudicating authority has failed to discharge his authority by independently inquiring....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(CESTAT). With respect to period 2016-17 to June, 2017 the learned Tribunal held in the case of the present petitioner that "As the Show Cause Notice to the appellant has been issued to the appellant on 12.10.2021 by invoking extended period of limitation for the period 2016-17 to June, 2017 as whole of the period is beyond the normal period of limitation, therefore, no demand is sustainable against the appellant". 9.2. It is also brought to our notice that the petitioner has filed an application for rectification of order dated 4th July, 2024 under Section 74 of the Finance Act, which has come to be rejected on 23rd June, 2025 by the Commissioner, GST and CX Commissionerate, Rourkela. 10. From the above narration of factual position, as it is ex facie discernible that the turnover/consideration stated to have been received with respect to works executed has been deleted from the purview of adjudication by the Principal Commissioner at Ranchi, because in the impugned Order-in-Original dated 04.07.2024 (Annexure-7) the said turnover has been assessed and the consideration thereof has been made subject to levy of service tax. Furthermore, the learned Tribunal has set aside the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ished before this Court for the first time. Though alternative remedy exists to question the veracity of the determination of tax liability made in the Order-in-Original dated 04.07.2024, as the petitioner pleads violation of principles of natural justice for want of service of one of the notices and in adequate opportunity to present his matter before the Adjudicating Authority, in view of Tin Box Co. Vrs. CIT, (2001) 9 SCC 725, this writ petition is entertained in order to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to present its case. 10.5. It may be relevant to quote from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Tin Box Co. Vrs. CIT, (2001) 9 SCC 725: "1. It is unnecessary to go into great detail in these matters for there is a statement in the order of the Tribunal, the fact-finding authority, that reads thus: "We will straight away agree with the assessee's submission that the ITO had not given to the assessee proper opportunity of being heard." 2. That the assessee could have placed evidence before the first appellate authority or before the Tribunal is really of no consequence for it is the assessment order that counts. Tha....