TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 900
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on is to the Order-in-Original No. GD/AC/29/GHY/AUDIT/CGST/2022-23, dated 17.05.2022, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India, whereby the Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice dated 18.10.2019 has been confirmed and a service tax demand of Rs. 5,57,627/- (Rupees five lakhs fifty seven thousand six hundred twenty-seven) only, including cess, has been raised against the petitioner under Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994. By the said order, interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 has also been directed to be recovered, a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- has been imposed under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 and a further penalty of Rs. 5,57,627/- (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mination of service tax liability. 5. It is the contention of the petitioner that after receipt of the Show Cause Notice, no further notice of hearing or communication was served upon the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner was under the impression that the proceedings initiated pursuant to the Show Cause Notice had not been proceeded with. However, subsequently, the petitioner received the impugned Order-in-Original dated 17.05.2022 whereby the service tax demand proposed in the Show Cause Notice was confirmed along with interest and penalties. 6. Ms. N. Hawelia, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the impugned Order-in-Original dated 17.05.2022 is wholly unsustainable in law inasmuch as the demand of service tax ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsel, CGST, fairly submits that the case of Technocom (supra), as relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, has been rendered on similar facts and law, which would cover the case of the present petitioner. 9. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the judgment and order dated 09.01.2026, passed by this Court in the case of Technocom (supra). 10. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced hereinbelow: "32. Upon a perusal of the pleadings available before the Court, it is seen that the service tax liability of services by the petitioner was stated that the contracts undertaken by the Petitioner were pertaining to Railways and the same was exempted from pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 73 for extension of the period of limitation, it must necessarily be a case which falls under any or all the conditions specified under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the CGST Act. From a plain reading of the impugned Order-in-Original and the relevant portions of which have been extracted above, it is evident that there is no finding by the Adjudicating Authority that the case of the petitioner can be considered to be a case which falls under the conditions specified in proviso to Section 73(1). Under such circumstances, the impugned Order-in-Original appears to the Court to have been assumption of jurisdiction by the revenue authorities which was not otherwise vested on the said authority. For the revenue authorities to invoke powers ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nto consideration the information available in form 26AS of the Income Tax Act, the sole basis for the purpose of levy of service tax. The authority did not consider the services rendered by the petitioner were exempted from levy of service tax or the liability to pay the service tax on the said services was on the recipient on the services. Since the adjudicating authority did not take into consideration those relevant materials which it was bound to take into consideration and on the other hand it had taken into consideration factors and materials, which if not irrelevant and not germane for deciding the liability of the service tax, cannot establish the liability of the assessee, then the said actions of the adjudicating authority is cer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his Court has held that the levy of service tax on the petitioner by extending the limitation is contrary to the provisions of law, the natural corollary that would follow is that the levy of all penalty, surcharge and interest are also not leviable on the petitioner, this Court therefore issues a writ of certiorari setting aside the impugned order in original and it is ordered accordingly. 72. Therefore the writ petition stands accordingly allowed. However no order as to cost. Pending I.A.s are also dismissed and the interim order if any stands merged." 11. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment shows that the co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that a service tax demand founded solely on Form 26AS, without any independent examin....