Service Tax Hearing Missed due to Health Issues: Meghalaya HC Grants Relief to 76 Year old Taxpayer, Stays Recovery [Read Order]

The High Court of Meghalaya has granted relief to a 76-year-old taxpayer who missed a Service Tax appellate hearing due to serious medical issues. The court allowed him an opportunity to approach the appellate tribunal while directing authorities not to initiate coercive recovery proceedings in the meantime.

Sri Ram Gopal Harlalka filed a petition before the high court against the order issued by the Assistant Commissioner of CGST, imposing Service Tax liability under Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994.

The demand was allegedly based on the ground that Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) had been made, which the petitioner contended could not by itself justify the levy of Service Tax.

The petitioner challenged the order before the Commissioner (Appeals). However, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal and upheld the adjudication order, noting that despite multiple opportunities for personal hearing on 19.12.2023, 18.01.2024 and 19.02.2024 neither the petitioner nor his authorized representative appeared to present arguments.

Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that his absence from the appellate proceedings was not deliberate but occurred due to serious medical conditions.

He submitted that he missed the hearing due to serious health issues. He also submitted medical records supporting these health issues. The petitioner therefore sought the Court’s intervention to reopen the matter and allow adjudication on merits after hearing.

The Division Bench comprising Justice H. S. Thangkhiew and Justice B. Bhattacharjee noted that the appellate order itself recorded the petitioner’s absence during the scheduled hearings.

However, after reviewing the medical documents, the court was satisfied with the reasons. Considering the advanced age of the petitioner, it allowed the petitioner to file the appeal before the appellate tribunal and also directed the tribunal to condone the delay.

Until the final order of the tribunal, court ordered not to take coercive action against the petitioner.

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