CHATURVEDI TRAVELS AND TOURS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has raised a grievance that since he has not been served with the adjudication orders dated 24/10/2006, 31/12/2007, 30/3/2009 and 30/4/2012 and, therefore, for want of knowledge, he had no occasion to file appeals therefrom, as provided under the Act. As such, the order dated 19/1/2013, Annexure P/1, which bears reference of aforesaid four adjudication orders and calls upon the petitioner to deposit the amount due to him within the stipulated period, failing which coercive measures shall be resorted to under Section 87 of the Finance Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1994'), is unsustainable in the eyes of law.

(2.) ON notice, respondents no.1 to 3 have entered appearance and filed counter affidavit. It is submitted that the petitioner is a holder of service tax registration certificate No.ST/R -1/GWL/rent -a -cab/08/04 -05 dated 22/9/2004 converted into PAN base registration No.ADUPC3825AST001 dated 27/8/2009 for providing taxable service under the category of rent -a -cab service, which are defined under Section 65 of the Act of 1994. On the basis of the information gathered, it was found that the petitioner though engaged in the aforesaid taxable service, but had not paid the tax and also not submitted ST -3 returns required to be filed periodically. Hence, show -cause notice was issued to the petitioner demanding service tax and also for levy of penalty under the various provisions of the Act of 1994. The said show - cause notice was issued to the petitioner by post within the prescribed time. Thereafter, adjudication was done by the competent authority after giving ample opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case as well as personal hearing. Thereafter, adjudication orders were passed, details whereof are contained in Annexure P/1, namely, order dated 24/10/2006 tax Rs.6,917/ - plus Rs.1,000/ - penalty; order dated 31/12/2007 tax Rs.1,64,016/ -; order dated 30/3/2009 tax Rs.3,797/ - plus Rs.1,000/ - penalty; and, order dated 30/4/2012 tax Rs.1,89,295/ -. As per the return, these orders were served upon the petitioner in accordance with the provisions as contained in Section 37 of the Act of 1994. Copy of adjudication orders are also on record as Annexure R/1, R/2 and R/3. Details of dispatch of aforesaid orders are catalogued at page Nos.4 and 5 of the return. It is further submitted that despite such procedure having been adopted for service of adjudication orders upon the petitioner, the petitioner still made a grievance that he had not received the adjudication orders. Respondents submit that the orders in original since were sent to the petitioner by post and the same were not returned to the postal authorities, therefore, the petitioner must have been served with the orders passed. It is further submitted that on said grievance being raised by the petitioner of non -serving the aforesaid adjudication orders, respondents again served the copy of the orders to the petitioner by post and again the same did not return back to the postal authorities. Still again respondents served letter No.C.No.ST/R -I/GWL/Rent -a -Cab/08/2004 -05/496 dated 25/4/2012 regarding non -payment of government dues mentioning all these adjudication orders to the petitioner's office personally through peon -book under Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Copy of the letter and copy of relevant extracts of the peon book are also annexed as Annexure R/5 and R/6. With the aforesaid submissions, it is contended that there is sufficient material to demonstrate that the petitioner was duly served with the adjudication orders passed on previous occasions, but he chosen not to avail the remedy of appeal against the said orders. As such, all such orders have attained finality. After confirmation of demand of tax dues, amount of Rs.1,89,295/ - as indicated in the order dated 30/4/2012, since the petitioner did not pay the service tax, therefore, last reminder was issued on 19/1/2013 impugned in this petition. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said order dated 30/4/2012 has been rejected by the Commissioner, Appeals, vide order dated 20/2/2013 and demands have been upheld. Thereafter, petitioner has not chosen to file appeal before the Tribunal constituted under the Central Excise Act and blissfully remained indifferent. With the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted that no fault can be found with the respondents in the matter of framing of adjudication orders and crystallization of the outstanding dues against the petitioner. Petitioner's grievance against adjudication orders is without any basis and de hors the evidence on record. With the aforesaid submissions, counsel for respondents prayed for dismissal of the petition.

(3.) HAVING gone through the record of the case, this Court is of the view that respondents no.1, 2 and 3 have brought sufficient material on record to demonstrate service of adjudication orders dated 24/10/2006, 31/12/2007, 30/3/2009 and 30/4/2012 upon the petitioner confirming the demand of service tax. Since petitioner had chosen neither to file appeal nor to pay the tax, therefore, Annexure P/1 dated 19/1/2013 was passed further granting time to make good the default of non - payment of tax, failing which measures under Section 87 of the Act of 1994, were indicated to be taken. Hence, no interference is warranted by this Court for the relief claimed in the petition on the premise that the adjudication orders were not served upon the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition sans merits and is hereby dismissed.