Case Law Details
Bhagirath Infra Projects (AP) Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax and Others (Andhra Pradesh High court)
Andhra Pradesh High Court has set aside an assessment order related to service tax imposed on Bhagirath Infra Projects (AP) Private Limited. The court’s decision stemmed from the company’s claim that it did not receive a notice for a personal hearing after submitting its objections to a show cause notice. Bhagirath Infra Projects, involved in road, bridge, and irrigation works, argued that the absence of a personal hearing prejudiced its case, as it prevented the assessing authority from properly considering its exemption claim under Notification No. 25/2012.
The case centered on a dispute over the validity of notice delivery. The revenue department presented documents indicating that a personal hearing intimation was sent via email and post. However, the petitioner contested these claims, stating that the email address used by the department was not registered with GST authorities and that the postal notices were returned unserved. The petitioner provided their registered email address, bhagirathnnv@gmail.com, for future correspondence.
Faced with conflicting claims regarding notice delivery, the court chose not to delve into the disputed facts. Instead, it focused on ensuring procedural fairness. The court acknowledged the importance of a personal hearing in allowing taxpayers to present their case and address any concerns the assessing authority might have. The court referenced the core concept of natural justice, where a fair hearing is a crucial element.
To resolve the issue, the court quashed the assessment order dated March 26, 2024, and directed the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner, explicitly scheduling a personal hearing. This new notice was mandated to be sent to the petitioner’s registered email address, bhagirathnnv@gmail.com. The court further instructed the petitioner to appear for the personal hearing and present their objections through an authorized representative. Finally, recognizing the unique circumstances of the case, the court ruled that the petitioner would not be allowed to raise any objections based on limitation periods.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Heard Sri A. Sarveswar Row, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. Santi Chandra, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent No.1 and J.U.M.V. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2. The petitioner is involved in the business of execution of road works and construction of bridges and irrigation works. A show cause notice dated 11.12.2020 was received by the petitioner demanding service tax on the turnover reported in the income tax returns for the financial year 2015-16 and 2016-17. The petitioner filed his objections to this show cause notice. Thereafter, the petitioner received the impugned order of assessment, dated 26.03.2024.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner did not receive any notice of personal hearing, after the submission of his objections and the lack of such personal hearing is prejudicially affect his case, in as much as, the assessing authority could not appreciate the exemption sought by the petitioner under notification No.25/2012, dated 20.06.2012, issued by the Central Government.
4. Santi Chandra, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue, has filed a Memo dated 25.11.2024 bearing USR No.108969 of 2024. Copies of the personal hearing intimation letter as well as the printouts of service of notice on the mail ID of the petitioner are enclosed to this Memo.
5. The learned Standing Counsel, on the basis of these documents, would submit that notices were served on the petitioner and the contention of violation of principles of natural justice and violation of the requirement of grant of personal hearing is not maintainable.
6. Sri A. Sarveswar Row, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Mail ID to which the message had been sent, does not belong to the petitioner and it is also not the Mail ID, which is registered with the GST authorities. He would further submit that notices that were said to have been sent by post, even according to the postal report filed by the respondents, were returned unserved and as such there was no service of notice either by way of e-mail or by way of post.
7. In view of the aforesaid disputed questions of fact, this Court, without going into these issues, deems it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with the following directions.
1. The impugned order dated 26.03.2024 is set aside.
2. The 1st respondent shall issue a fresh notice to the petitioner fixing a date of personal hearing.
3. This notice shall be sent by e-mail to bhagirathnnv@gmail.com, which is said to be the e-mail ID in the GST records.
4. The petitioner, upon receipt of such notice of personal hearing, shall appear before the 1st respondent and set out its objections through its authorized representative.
5. The 1st respondent shall then be free to consider and pass appropriate orders, after hearing the petitioner.
6. In view of the peculiar circumstances of this case, the question of limitation shall not be raised by the petitioner.
8. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
Author Bio
