2019 (1) TMI 383 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – TMI – Validity of demand of service tax – ex-parte order passed by the adjudicating officer – principles of natural justice – Held that:- Admittedly, the petitioner was issued with the show cause notice dated 13.01.2017, calling upon them to show cause within the time stipulated therein as to why the service rendered by them in relation to sale of space to products placement in the motion picture should not be classified as 'Services' under Section 65(B) read with 65B(51) and the services in relation to temporary transfer or permitting the use of enjoyment of copyrights should not be classified under 'copyright service'.
–
It is seen that the petitioner after receipt of the said notice did not file any reply. On the other hand, the record of personal hearing made by the Adjudicating Authority on 21.05.2018 clearly discloses that the petitioner though repeatedly asked for extension of time to file reply, had not submitted any reply, even thoug
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ion is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. 2. This Writ Petition is filed against the order in original No.26/2018 dated 18.07.2018. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though an appeal is maintainable against the impugned order before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, still the writ petition is maintainable, on the reason that the petitioner was not afforded with sufficient opportunity to defend the case before the Adjudicating Authority. The learned counsel contended that the demand itself is not valid in the eye of law and therefore, this writ petition is maintainable. 5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the petitioner has not filed their reply to the show cause notice at the first instance, the Adjudicating Authority should have given two more opportunities, by way of adjournment to file such
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
rvice tax, education cess and Higher Education cess not paid on the above said services provided by them and payable for the period from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2015, should not be demanded from them in terms of the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Act. 7. It is seen that the petitioner after receipt of the said notice did not file any reply. On the other hand, the record of personal hearing made by the Adjudicating Authority on 21.05.2018 clearly discloses that the petitioner though repeatedly asked for extension of time to file reply, had not submitted any reply, even though such time was granted. When such being the factual position I do not think that the learned counsel for the petitioner is entitled to contend that the Adjudicating Authority has not given sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. Neither Section 33-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, contemplates the opportunity as expected by the petitioner herein. Therefore, the order of adjudication passed by the respondent cannot b
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =