Calcutta HC Rejects Writ Against Service Tax Order, Says Petitioner Cannot Blame Dept for Missed Hearing After Failing to Notify Address Change [Read Order]

The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging a service tax order, ruling that the petitioner could not blame the department for missing the opportunity of a personal hearing when she herself failed to inform the authorities about her change of address.

Mrs. Rashmi Rungta had approached the High Court challenging an order dated 8th March 2024 passed by the adjudicating authority under the Finance Act, 1994 and the Service Tax Rules, 1994. She argued that the impugned order violated principles of natural justice as no personal hearing was granted despite her request.

Stay Updated with the Latest Audit Report Formats & Audit Trials Requirements! Click here

Her counsel contended that although her updated phone number and email ID were on record, the department did not use these channels to communicate the hearing notices.

Moreover, it was submitted that after replying to the show cause notice, the petitioner had shifted her residence to Gauhati and was unaware of any notices sent to her Kolkata address.

However, appearing for the GST authorities, the counsel pointed out that the petitioner was repeatedly given opportunities for a personal hearing. The notices dated 2nd November 2023 and 23rd November 2023 clearly offered hearings on 20th November and 5th December 2023 respectively.

The department asserted that the petitioner never communicated any change of address and in fact, her own correspondence and affidavit filed before the Court continued to mention her Kolkata address as valid.

Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury, after the hearing and noting the records, agreed with the department’s stand. It was observed that the show cause notice was duly served at the Kolkata address and the petitioner had responded on her own letterhead reflecting the same address.

The Court found no evidence that the petitioner ever formally notified the department about any shift in residence. According to the bench, the petitioner could not hold the authorities responsible for her failure to appear for the hearings.

While dismissing the writ petition, the high court clarified that this order would not prevent the petitioner from filing an appeal before the appropriate appellate authority, provided that the petitioner does so within four weeks and complies with all required formalities.

Advocates Supriyo Chattopadhyay, Sudip Kr. Maiti and Debasree Chatterjee appeared for the petitioner. Advocates Kaushik Dey and Kaushik Kr. Maiti appeared for the CGST Department. Advocates Soumen Bhattacharjee, Sabita Roy, Ankan Das and Shradhya Ghosh appeared for the Union of India.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates