AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.N. Patel, A.C.J.
This writ petition has been preferred challenging the Order-inOriginal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax,
Ranchi (Respondent No.1) dated 31Â Â st March, 2016, whereby demand of Rs.8,53,65,385/- was confirmed towards Service Tax. Demand of
intererst was also confirmed. Equal amount of penalty has also been imposed. The said amount is with respect to Financial Year 2012-13. Similarly,
for Financial Year 2013-14, demand of service tax of Rs. 2,32,26,933/- has also been confirmed with interest and 10% penalty of the amount has also
been confirmed upon the Noticee- present petitioner with further penalty under the provisions of Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 for both the
financial years. This order is an appealable order under Section 35 B of the Central Excise Act, 1994. This writ petition has been preferred on the
ground of alleged breach of or violation of principles of natural justice.
Having heard counsels for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that show-cause Notice dated 23 rd
October, 2013 was given by the respondents, which was not replied, by this petitioner. Thus, there is no violation of principles of natural justice by the
respondents. In fact, opportunity of being heard was never availed by this petitioner despite it was offered by the respondents.
Looking to the Order-in-Original, dated 31st March, 2016 (Annexure 7) passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Ranchi,
especially, paragraph No. 32, 34 and 35, it appears that approximately half a dozen times opportunity was given to this petitioner. Neither any reply
was filed to the show cause notice nor any ground was canvassed as to which are the documents, this petitioner was in need of and which were
impounded, during the search carried out by the Income Tax department. Thus, vague argument has been canvassed that petitioner was in need of
some documents and therefore, he could not give reply to their Show Cause Notice before issuance of Order-in-Original. This vagueness in argument
is known as “after thought argumentâ€.
It appears from the facts of the case that even otherwise also, the impugned order is an appealable order under Secton 35 B of the Central Excise
Act, 1944 before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata.
Thus, looking to paragraph no.s 32, 34 & 35 of Order-in-Original, it appears that though opportunity of being heard was given to this petitioner, the
same was never availed by this petitioner and hence, there is no violation of principles of natural justice. Petitioner was in requirement of which
documents and what was the relevance of those documents for giving reply to the Show-Cause Notice issued by the respondents have also never
been highlighted in any of the applications by the petitioner. The so-called applications, which are annexure 6 series, are absolutely vague in nature. No
description of any of the documents has been given by the petitioner nor has its importance for giving reply been shown by this petitioner. Thus,
opportunity of being heard was not availed by the petitioner and we do not want to give premium to such an action of the petitioner by entertaining this
writ petition also in the light of the fact that there is an alternative efficacious remedy available with this petitioner to challenge the impugned order
before Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata.
Hence, there is no substance in this writ petition. As efficacious alternative remedy is available with this petitioner, we are not inclined to
exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for checking the legality and validity of the Order-in-Original
(Annexure 7) dated 31st March, 2016.
This writ petition is, hereby, dismissed.