By TIOL News Service

CHENNAI, OCT 03, 2018: THE petitioner is aggrieved by an order in original confirming the demand of service tax of Rs.1,15,55,920/- and imposing interest and penalty.

The petitioner submitted that though they specifically sought for personal hearing through their reply dated 02.08.2018 and such reply was also duly acknowledged by the second respondent and incorporated in the impugned order itself, no such opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order.

Therefore, compliance of the principles of natural justice has not been followed by the second respondent in its full spirit and sense, the petitioner emphasised.

The High Court observed that it is convinced to entertain the writ petition and interfere with the impugned order only on the ground that the same came to be passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.

The High Court added -

"7. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner while making their reply dated 02.08.2018, has specifically sought for personal hearing. It is also not in dispute that the Adjudicating Authority received such reply and dealt with the same in the impugned order. However, the fact remains that before passing the impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority has not given an opportunity of personal hearing. At this juncture, it is useful to refer to Section 33A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which is made applicable to the service tax matters under Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 wherein it is contemplated that the Adjudicating Authority shall give an opportunity of being heard for the party in proceedings, if the party so desires. Therefore, it is evident that the impugned order, though passed by considering the merits of the matter, cannot be sustained, only on the reason that the same was passed without following the principles of natural justice in its full sense as stated supra."

The impugned order was set aside and the matter remitted to the adjudicating authority for passing fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.

(See 2018-TIOL-2043-HC-MAD-ST)