LION SECURITY SERVICES Vs. COMMR. OF SERVICE TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has called in question the legality and correctness of the original Order No. 31/2016, dated 9-12-2016 at Annexure-D to the writ petition.

(2.) Petitioner is a proprietary concern registered with Service Tax Department for providing serviceable tax for "Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Services" for the period in question. The officers of the Service tax acting on the information of the Intelligence that the petitioner was rendering taxable service under the categories of "Security Agency Services" and "Manpower Recruitment Services" without discharging the service tax liability, conducted investigation. After completion of investigation, respondent No. 1 issued a show cause notice for the period from April, 2004 to Sept., 2008 invoking an extended period of limitation under Sec. 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 demanding service tax along with interest. After completing the adjudication proceedings, respondent No. 1 issued an order-in-original confirming the demand of service tax proposed in the show cause notice along with interest and penalty. Subsequently yet another show cause notice was issued on 15-4-2014 demanding service tax for the period from October, 2008 to March, 2013, in continuation of the show cause notice issued on 7-10-2009 proposing tax along with interest and penalty. On adjudication of the proceedings respondent No. 2 issued an order-in-original demanding service tax along with penalty. The said order dated 9-12-2016 at Annexure-D is challenged in this writ petition.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that adjudicating authority has wrongly recorded a finding on 28-11-2016 that one Sri K. Ranganatha Adiga appeared before the adjudicating authority and submitted that he will pay the service tax shortly and requested for dropping the penalty. On the other hand, signature of the proprietor was taken forcibly by the adjudicating authority and impugned order was passed without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thus, it is submitted that alternative remedy is no bar to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction when denial of natural justice is manifest.