" Page 1 of 7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.4270 of 2026 M/s. Crushaders Tech Solution LLP, Khandagiri …. Petitioner Mr. Prakash Kumar Jena, Advocate along with Mr. Siba Prasad Dalai, Advocate -versus- Superintendent GST & Central Excise, Bhubaneswar II Division and another …. Opposite Parties Mr. Bismay Ananda Prusty, Senior Standing Counsel CORAM: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No. ORDER 13.02.2026 02. 1. The petitioner, demonstrating inaction of the Assistant Commissioner, GST & Central Excise, Cuttack-I Division, Cuttack for not issuing certified copy of the Order-in-Original No.AC/GST & CX DVIN/ B-II/ST-616/2024, dated 30th August, 2024, for which application was made on 16th December, 2025 after receipt of letter dated 4th December, 2025 from the Bank of India, Sailashree Vihar Branch, Bhubaneswar contemplating recovery of outstanding arrear demands and assailing issuance of recovery notice dated 16th October, 2025 by the Assistant Commissioner GST & Central Excise, Bhubaneswar-II Division, Bhubaneswar vide order dated 6th October, 2025 for recovery of service tax demand, this writ petition invoking provisions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Printed from counselvise.com Page 2 of 7 Constitution of India has been filed with the following prayer(s): “Under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the petitioner prays the Hon’ble Court to kindly consider the aforementioned facts and be pleased to: (I) admit the writ petition; (II) issue Rule NISI calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause, and if they fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, issue appropriate writ, direction and order commanding the Opp Party No.2 to take immediate necessary steps for issue of certified copy of the order dt.30.08.2024 to enable the petitioner to file appeal; (III) pass such other or further order (s) or such direction (s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice. And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.” 2. The petitioner, M/s. Crushaders Tech Solution LLP, partnership concern registered with the Registrar of Companies, Cuttack, Odisha, is engaged as providing IT related software consultancy services. The facts adumbrated in the writ petition leading to question the propriety of raising demand are culled out and given hereunder. 2.1. The petitioner during the Financial Years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 having exported software services to the foreign countries filed service tax return in ST-3 reflecting under category of “export of service”, which attracts no service tax Printed from counselvise.com Page 3 of 7 within the ambit of Section 66B of Chapter-V of the Finance Act, 19941 (for short, “the Act”). Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules read with Section 65B(52) of the said Act makes it abundantly clear that the transaction in question does not fall within the scope of the Finance Act, 1994 at all. Therefore, the petitioner did not include the amount received from export of service to the clients in the service tax return in ST-3. 2.2. As it seems based on the income tax returns filed by the petitioner for the years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17, the Assistant Commissioner GST & Central Excise, Bhubaneswar- II Division, Bhubaneswar-opposite party No.2 issued Show Cause Notice dated 25th September, 2020 to the petitioner contemplating adjudication under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. The petitioner responded to said Show Cause Notice on 20th June, 2024. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Show Cause Notice dated 25th September, 2020 to proceed with adjudication of tax liability under Section 73 with respect to transactions effected during the Financial Years 2014-15, 2015- 16 and 2016-17 is beyond the statutory period of limitation stipulated, i.e., 31st March, 2015, 31st March, 2016 and 31st March, 2017 respectively. Nonetheless, an Adjudication Order was purported to have been passed on 30th August, 2024. 1 Section 66B reads as under: “Charge of Service Tax on services received from outside India.— There shall be levied a tax (hereinafter referred to as the service tax) at the rate of twelve per cent. on the value of all services, other than those services specified in the negative list, provided or agreed to be provided in the taxable territory by one person to another and collected in such manner as may be prescribed.” Printed from counselvise.com Page 4 of 7 3.1. It is submitted that as per Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, an Adjudication Order was required to be served on the assessee, said Order was never served on him, which prevented him from availing the remedy provided under the Finance Act, 1994. Nevertheless, the opposite party No.2 commenced recovery proceeding under Section 87 of the Finance Act, 1994. It is affirmatively submitted by the learned counsel that it is from banker that a demand is outstanding in respect of service tax pertaining to aforesaid Financial Years came to be known. The petitioner having received such information, filed an application on 16th December, 2025 and 30th December, 2025 before the competent officer seeking grant of certified copy of the Adjudication Order so as to enable him to prefer an appeal. Since there was no response from the opposite party No.2, and no copy is supplied, finding no alternative the present case has been instituted. 3.2. Seeking to place reliance on Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 19942 it is submitted that the transactions sought to be levied with service tax falls outside the ken of the Finance Act, 1994. 2 Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 stood thus: “6A. Export of Services.– (1) The provision of any service provided or agreed to be provided shall be treated as export of service when, - (a) The provider of service is located in the taxable territory, (b) The recipient of the service is located outside India, (c) The service is not a service specified in the section 66D of the Act, (d) The place of provision of the service is outside India, (e) The payment for such services has been received by the provider of service in convertible foreign exchange, and (f) The provider of service and recipient of service are not merely establishments of a distinct person in accordance with item (b) of Explanation 3 of clause (44) of Section 65B of the Act. (2) Where any service is exported, the Central Government may, by notification, grant rebate of service tax or duty paid on input services or inputs, as the case may be, used Printed from counselvise.com Page 5 of 7 3.3. It is alleged by the counsel for the petitioner that despite the Adjudication Order being shown to have been passed on 30th August, 2024, the same being not communicated to the assessee and non-supply of certified copy of such Order within a reasonable period, pre-supposes that such Order was never passed within the period of stipulated under Section 73 of Chapter-V of the Finance Act, 1994. 4. To meet such contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Bismaya Anand Prusty, learned Senior Standing Counsel sought for an accommodation to obtain instruction on earlier date of hearing. The learned Senior Standing Counsel during course of hearing handed over the photocopy of the Adjudication Order to the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the authority concerned communicated said order to the petitioner through Speed Post which was returned undelivered. However, he would urge that since the copy of the Adjudication Order has been communicated today, the appeal can be directed to be filed by the petitioner. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel and perused the record. 6. Appreciating the contentions of the counsel for the petitioner that the transactions pertaining to the Financial Years in question do not fall within the scope of Chapter-V of the Finance Act, 1994 and the Adjudication Order could not have in providing such service and the rebate shall be allowed subject to such safeguards, conditions and limitations, as may be specified, by the Central Government, by notification.” Printed from counselvise.com Page 6 of 7 been made on the date purported to have been passed which attracts vice of limitation, this Court is satisfied that such facts are required to be adjudicated as a matter of fact on scrutiny of records of the authority concerned and the Appellate Authority is competent to return such finding of fact. The legal issues raised by the petitioner are subject to determination by the Appellate Authority on facts on analysis of evidence available on record and to be adduced before him. 6.1. Since the petitioner has efficacious alternative remedy provided under the Finance Act, 1994 to prefer an appeal, this Court, without expressing opinion on the merits of the case, directs the petitioner to file appeal within a period of fifteen days from date. The copy of the Adjudication Order being supplied to the counsel for the petitioner in course of hearing of the present case, the Appellate Authority shall not raise issue of limitation in case appeal is filed within the period mentioned hereinabove. The petitioner shall file certified copy of the Adjudication Order within seven days from the date of delivery of such copy to him/authorized representative in consideration of application for grant of certified copy before the Appellate Authority. 6.2. Subject to compliance of statutory requirement(s), other than the limitation for filing appeal, the appeal shall be admitted and decided on merits without being influenced by any of the observations touching the merit of the matter hereinabove discussed. Needless to observe that the Appellate Authority concerned shall consider all such pleas to be raised by the petitioner as available to him in law including the point of Printed from counselvise.com Page 7 of 7 limitation qua the Adjudication Order. This Court hastens to add the following guideline set forth by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Vrs. State of Karnataka, (2022) 4 SCR 309: “Therefore, the courts should adjudicate on all the issues and give its findings on all the issues and not to pronounce the judgment only on one of the issues. As such it is the duty cast upon the courts to adjudicate on all the issues and pronounce the judgment on all the issues rather than adopting a shortcut approach and pronouncing the judgment on only one issue. By such a practice, it would increase the burden on the appellate court and in many cases if the decision on the issue decided is found to be erroneous and on other issues there is no adjudication and no findings recorded by the court, the appellate court will have no option but to remand the matter for its fresh decision. Therefore, to avoid such an eventuality, the courts have to adjudicate on all the issues raised in a case and render findings and the judgment on all the issues involved.” 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of along with pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any. (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) Judge MRS/Laxmikant Printed from counselvise.com Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 17-Feb-2026 11:12:18 Signature Not Verified "