\ttlg t]t{c Systems Private Limited v. 1. The Union of lndia

3. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs and Central Tax, Ir4alkajgiri GST Division, Ivlakajg]ri GST_Commissionerate, H.No.8-2-7713 and 4, ind floor, Aditya Towers, Sri Sai Enclave, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad'_ 500011 ' ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction to declare the lmpugned order dated 3ologl2o23 in order in origrnal No.155/2023-5T for the tax period April 2016 to [\/arch, 2017 passed by the 3rd Respondent as time barred and in violation of principles of natural justiie and consequently declare the same as arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently the Hon'ble court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned order 3ologl2o23 in order in Original No.155/2023-ST passed by the Respondent No.3. / IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 15i cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be ple:ased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned order 3oto9l2o23 in order in originar Nro.'l 55/2023-ST passed by the Respondent No.3, pending disposal of the writ Petition as otherwise the petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship. co u ns e I ro r th e P e ti t i o n"'' 3[l [3tl[tfl,f^Bt?A iB?..TIi dEt ry,Advoca te Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI MUKHERJEE, rep, DEPUTY.SOLTCTTOR GENERAL counsel for Respon'dent No.2&3:SRI DoMrNrc FERNANDES,sT.sc FoR cBrc The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGII THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHII]DDIN AND Writ Petition No.27648 of 2025 ORDER: Heard Mr.Chanakya Basa, learned counsel appears for Mr.Koripel Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel for the pe titioner, Mr. B. Mukherjee, learned counsel appears for respondent No.1 and Mr.Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs appears for respondents No.2 and 3.

2. Petitioner is a private limited company engaged in the business of providing information technolog, services, including export of software and .technical services, to clients outside India. It has been saddled with a liability of Rs.4,90,308/- with applicable interest and penalty. uide Order-in-Original (OIO) dated 30.O9.2023 under Section \ 73(21 of the Finance Act, 1994 (for short, 'the Act') Petitioner alleges that no show cause notice dated 17 .06 .2022 was served upon it, as its busrness was l changecl from previous address ,H.No.1-B-27i, Flat No.306, 3,d Floor, Ashok Bhopal Chambers, S.p.Road, Secunderabad 500003', to its current address - Villa No.73, Ashoka A la Maison, Dulapally, Kompa11y, Hyderabad-5(100 14'. Petitioner aiso contends that the OIC) was passed ,.vrthout any personal hearing. petitioner has; come to knou of the liability. only upon issuance of recovery. notice dated 25.11.2024, r,vhereafter its bank account wasr closed. It has approached this Court on 04.O9.2O25. lt prays for quashing of the impugned OIO dated 30.09.2023, as it is not onlJr time barred but is also passed in violation of principles of natural justice. As per the statement made at para 5 oi the u.rit petition, it is evident. that the petitioner has changed its prcvious address to a neu, address.

3. Sub-rukr (5A) of Rule 4 of the Service Ta_x Rules, 1994 (for short, 'the Rules'), reads as under: I I "(5A) Whcre there is a change in erny information or details furnished b1.' at'r assessee in Form ST 1 at the time of obtarning registration or he intends to furnish any additional information or detatl, srrch changc or information or details shall be 3 inlimated, in writing, by the assessee, to the jurisdictional Assistalt Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, within a period of thirty days of such change."

4. The above sub-rule (5A) of Rule 4 of the Rules prescribes that any change in any information or details furnished in Form ST- 1, if required, should be furnished by arr assessee by way of intimation in writing to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise. Hence, the petitioner had to furnish information within a period of 30 days of such change in its address. However, there is no statement in the writ petition that arry such intimation was sent' The petitioner had changed its address on its own without intimation to the respondents-authorities'

5. It is also alleged that no show camse notice was served upon it nor personal hearing was allowed before passing the impugned OIO. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that even if it is assumed that the petitioner came to know of the impugned OIO only upon issuance of recovery proceedings dated 25'11'2024, it has I I -l -! preferred the: present writ petition only on O4.O9.2025, i.e:. much beyond the period prescribed for appeal before the appellate authority under Section 85 of the Act. Learnerl counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner (CTf LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Klinr: Consumer Health Care Limitedr and submits that th,: plea relating, to non-service of show cause notice an<l violation of prrin6ip1"" of natural justice are untenable, fo:: the reason t.hat the petitioner had changed its addresr; without intinration to the jurisdictional assessment officer. Even after knowledge of the recovery proceedingri dated 25.1 l.'.2024, it has approached this Court after muctL delay, and therefore, the writ petition may not bt: entertainecl.

6. On consideration of rival submissions of the partiesr and on perusal of the record, we a-re of the view that firsttg. the petitioner itself is at fault for having chalged its, address without intimation to the jurisdictional assessmenl. I I t Qo2o) 79 scc 681 ) officer. Therefore, he cannot take a plea that the show cause notice was not properly served. Secondlg, even a_fter coming to know of the recovery proceedings, it has approached this Court after expiry of the period of limitation to prefer the statutory appeal.

7. Therefore, on both the counts, we are not inclined to interfere with the OIO impugned in the writ petition. B. Accordingly, the instant Writ Petition is dismissed. There shail be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. /iTRUE COPY// SD/. A.SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REFISTRAR secrro€rrrcrn To, 2 I One CC to SRI KORIPEL t\'lADHUSUDHAN REDDY' Advocate lOPUCl one CC to Deputv Solicitor General of lndia' High Court for the State of ielangana at HYderabad. [OPUCI One CC to SRI DO[\IlNlC FERNANDES' Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC loPUCl .)

4. Two CD CoPies BSK TKS -[ i 1[: i r.'1 --, ] .-- .- ,r) .:. Q. ? I 0[T ttl75 I HIGH COURT DATED:1510912025 ORDER WP.No.27648 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS I'