Orissa HC Quashes Service Tax Demand on Ex Parte Basis, Says Non-Consideration of Contention is Denial of Hearing [Read Order]
“We are inclined to and admit the writ petition because non- consideration of the contention amounts to denial of hearing” , said the bench.
![Orissa HC Quashes Service Tax Demand on Ex Parte Basis, Says Non-Consideration of Contention is Denial of Hearing [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/08/12/2075844-orissa-hc-quashes-service-tax-demand-ex-parte-non-consideration-contention-denial-of-hearing.webp "Orissa HC Quashes Service Tax Demand on Ex Parte Basis, Says Non-Consideration of Contention is Denial of Hearing [Read Order]")
“Non-consideration of the contention amounts to denial of hearing”, said the Orissa High Court and set aside a service tax demand passed on an ex parte basis holding that failure to consider a taxpayer’s contention amounts to a denial of hearing. The petitioner, M/s Basement to Roof had challenged the adjudicating authority’s order dated January 1, 2025, which raised a...
“Non-consideration of the contention amounts to denial of hearing”, said the Orissa High Court and set aside a service tax demand passed on an ex parte basis holding that failure to consider a taxpayer’s contention amounts to a denial of hearing.
The petitioner, M/s Basement to Roof had challenged the adjudicating authority’s order dated January 1, 2025, which raised a service tax demand despite the claim of exemption under the June 20, 2012 notification for services provided to the government.
Become PF & ESIC Pro: Basic to Advance Course - Enroll Today
The counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M.L. Agarwal, submitted that his client only became aware of the order upon receiving recovery proceedings and had not been given an opportunity to present its case.
The Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Sujan Kumar Roy Choudhury appearing for the Revenue, admitted that the order had been passed ex parte and that the petitioner’s contention was not considered. He also pointed out that the order was appealable.
The Bench, comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman, observed that “We are inclined to and admit the writ petition because non- consideration of the contention amounts to denial of hearing.”
The court, while allowing the petition, quashed the impugned order and restored the matter to the adjudicating authority. It directed the petitioner to submit a certified copy of the order along with its contention, following which the authority must pass a fresh order after due consideration.
The Future of Tax and Finance: Upskill with Us
It also clarified that if the petitioner failed to file its contention by September 4, 2025, the impugned order would stand automatically restored.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
