M/s. Aarian lntasel Services Private Limited v. 1. The Union of lndia

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 an order direction, rnore particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in freezing the Petitioner company Bank Account vide A/c. No. 630505030421, ICICI Bank in view of the Order-in-Original. No. 15612023-24-Adjn.(AC)-ST-HYD-GST, dated 29.O8.2023 for payment of Rs. 17,24,9651- without issuing the show cause notice to the petitioner company or to its representatives and demanding to pay an amount of Rs 17,214,9651- for the period of April 2016-17 March is illegal, arbitrary, improper, unjust violation of provisions envisaged in Finance Act, 1994, Service Tax Rules,lgg4 and CGST Act, 2017 and against the principles laid down in Articles 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of lndia and also against the principles of Natural Justice and consequently set-aside the Order-in-Original No. 15612023- 2 -Adjn.(AC)-ST-HYD-GST, dated 29.08.2023. |.A.NO:1 OF 2024 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to de-freeze the Petitioner company bank account vide A/c. No. 630505030421, lClCl Bank pending disposal of the above writ petition. counsel for the Petitioner : sRl CHEEDELLA LAKSHMI NARASIMHA RAo, ADVOCATE FOR SRI A.V.A.SIVA KARTIKEYA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI N.BHUJANGA RAO, DEpUTy SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 : sRl DoMlNlc FERNANDES, sENloR STANDING COUNSEL FOR CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND cusroMs (cBtc) The Court made the following ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TET.,ANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'I}LE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SBJ APAITESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRT JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION No.33948 of 2024 DATED : 01.12.2025 Between: M/s. Aarian Intasel Serv'ices Private Limited AND The Union of India, rep. try its Secretary to Governmcnt N{inistry of Finance, Net' Delhi, and three others .. Petitioncr Ilcspondents ORDER: Fleard Sri A.V.A. Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel appears for petitioner and Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) appears for respondents Nos.2 to 4

2. T'he impugned Order-In-Original (for short 'OIO') dated

29.08.2023 imposed tax liability of Rs.17,24,9651- for the ( d period 2016-17. The petitioner assailed the same in the present Writ Petition filed on 02.12.2024 on the ground that no show 2 HCJ (AKrS, J) & Glvllvl, J W.I'.No.339-18 ol 202'l cause notice was served upon it, thereby, denying the principles of naturaljustice and the procedure laid down under Section '73 of the Finance Acl, 1994,, read with Section ll4(l) of the Ce:ntral Goods and Services Tax Act,2017 .

3. Apart from that, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to paras 15 and 16 of OIO, in para 16 of which, it has been recorded that the petitioncr tax paycr had rnade rvritten submissions. In the preceding paragraph, the learned Assessing Officer categorically recorcled that the assessee has no inclination to. file their reply despite sufficient time being provided and also to attend the personal hearing. It shows complete non-application of rnind l.he learned Assessing Officer has thereafter proceeded to adjudge the liability as aforesaid besides imposing penalty of the equivalent amount under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, and also Section 77 thereof. He has also irnposed late fee for non-filing of ST3 returns for the above said period

4. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 have enclosed to their counter- affidavit the documents containing details of despatch of show \ /. r' I I I I l i i i I , i 3 HCJ (AKrS, J) & cMM, J W.P.No.33948 of 2024 cause notice through Speed Post. They have also annexed the copies of envelopes showing despatch of personal hearing notices upon the petitioner and the acknowledgment made b1, tlre petitioner on 05.08.2023 through email seeking further time till 31.08.2023 to appear and clarifu all the issues. On behalf of respondent Nos .2 to 4, it is contended that the plea of non-service of show cause notice is an afterthought, since in the acknowledgment or reply to the notice of personal hearing through email, the petitioner never raised the issue of non-service of show cause notice. Despite service of personal hearing notice, the petitioner failed to participate in the proceedings and contest the charges

5. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 has sought to clariS, the statement made at para l6 of the OIO that the said statement was an inadvertent error as the remaining body of the OIO does not reflect any submission of reply or written \ submission by the petitioner which has been referred to before confirming the demand. It is submitted that the impugned proceedings are also belated and hit by the ratio rendered in ,tt It 4 tlCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM' J !\'.P.No.33948 of 2024 the case of Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTLI, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limitedt.

6. We havc considered the submissions o1' the learned counsel for the Parties.

7. In the light of the docutnents annexed to the counter- affidavit and additional counter-affidavit, it is evident that the respondent department has despatched the show cause notice through Speed Post ou 2l.l}.202l. Had the petitioner not received thc shorv cause notice, the email sent in acknowlerJgment to the personal hearing notice ought to have raised the issue o{'1ou-service of show cause notice. Despite receipt ol' personal hearing notice, the petitioner did not file any reply and has raised this plea as an afterthought after the OIO was passed. The decision rendered by a coordinate Bench of tlris Clourt ,-ide order dated 23.02.2023 passed in Writ Petition No.4357 of 2023 shows that not only the service of show cause notice was not recorded in the OIO but also none of the three personal hearing letters issued to the petitioner f I lzozo; t9 s(rc 681 5 HCJ w (AKrS, J) & .P.No.33948 GMM, J of 2024 --,, were served upon them at the last known address as those were returned undelivered. In those circumstances, the learned Court concluded that the notice was not served Llpon the petitioner therein thereby causing violation of principles of natural justice.

8. ln the present case, the facts are distinct. On the one hand, as observed above, the department shows despatch of show cause notice through Speed Post. On the other, the petitioner despite receipt of personal hearing notice does not raise that plea nor participates in the proceedings by furnishing any reply or written statement. As such, this plea is not tenable in facts or in law. The statement made at para 16 of the impugned OIO would not improve the case of the petitioner as the entire discussion thereafter made by the Assessing Officer does not make any mention of the stand of the petitioner if any conveyed through his written submission. For that inadvertent error alone, the impugned order should not be quashed.

9. In the totality of facts and circumstances and the reasons recorded hereinabove, we are not inclined to interfere in the \ ,lt { 6 r{CJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J W.P.No.339-18 of 2024 order impugned on alleged ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the instant Writ Petitiorr is dismissed.

10. At the end, the learned coultsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be given liberty to prefer an appeal as is permissible in law. We do not feel that any libcrty is required Ibr the petitioner to prefer an appeal. It is open for the petitioner to seek such remedf if available in law. We have not commented on the merits ol'the case of the parties. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. SD/. A.H.S. GOWRI SHANKAR STANT //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER

1. One CC to SRI A.V.A.S|VA KARTT KEYA, 2. One CC to SRI DOMINIC FERNANDES, SEN cI DING COUNSEL FOR CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS (cBtc), Ad One CC to INDIA, Advocate IoPUCI vocate [OPUC] SRI N.BHUJANGA RAO, DEPUW SOLICITOR GEN ERAL OF

4. Two CD Copies (+ \ To SA LS ./ I ,"''=/ -.' i'€ t ) I t, ?tffi ,i ',1 + P;i, I' FIIGH COURT DATED i0111212025 ORDER WP.No.33948 of 2024 DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. (A- b \'-- a<-