Bhagirath Infra Projects (AP) Private Limited V. The Assistant Commissioner Of Central Tax and Others

WP/17209/2024

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Bhagirath Infra Projects (AP) Private Limited, the petitioner, who is engaged in road, bridge, and irrigation works. The petitioner received a show cause notice demanding service tax on turnover reported in income tax returns for the financial years 2015-16 and 2016-17. After filing objections, the petitioner received an order of assessment, which was contested due to the alleged lack of a personal hearing. The respondents claimed that notices were served via email and post, which the petitioner disputed, stating that the email used was not theirs and postal notices were returned unserved. The court, without delving into these factual disputes, set aside the assessment order and directed a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 805664 (HC-ANDHRA_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 22-01-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Notification No.25/2012
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SANTHI CHANDRA; J U M V PRASAD
• Assessee Lawyers: A RAO
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Exemption; Natural Justice; Personal hearing; Service tax
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"1 RRR, J & MRK, J W.P.No.17209/2024 APHC010323742024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3508] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 17209/2024 Between: M/s Bhagirath Infra Projects (AP) Private Limited ...PETITIONER AND The Assistant Commissioner Of Central Tax and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A SARVESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SANTHI CHANDRA (Sr. Standing Counsel for CBIC) 2. J U M V PRASAD (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) The Court made the following order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Heard Sri A. Sarveswar Row, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. Santi Chandra, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for 2 RRR, J & MRK, J W.P.No.17209/2024 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. Smt. 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 3 RRR, J & MRK, J W.P.No.17209/2024 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 [e-mail], 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. 4 RRR, J & MRK, J W.P.No.17209/2024 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. _______________________ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J Js. 5 RRR, J & MRK, J W.P.No.17209/2024 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.17209 of 2024 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao) 22nd January, 2025 Js "