Facts of the Case

  • The petitioner, K. Janakiraman, is an 81-year-old individual who was suffering from cancer and various advanced age-related ailments during the period under dispute.
  • The Revenue department issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) to the petitioner on April 24, 2021, which happened to be during the peak disruptive phases of the COVID-19 pandemic.
  • Due to severe health complications and the pandemic constraints, the petitioner failed to respond to the SCN or attend the personal hearings provided by the department.
  • Consequently, the Adjudicating Authority passed an ex-parte Order-in-Original (No. 16/2024-R) on August 24, 2022, determining the turnover and quantifying the short-paid service tax, along with interest and penalties.
  • The petitioner claimed total ignorance of the assessment order until the department forcefully initiated recovery proceedings and attached/realized funds directly from his bank account at Indian Overseas Bank.
  • Upon discovering the recovery, the petitioner obtained a copy of the Order-in-Original and immediately filed an appeal before the Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Appeals).
  • The Appellate Authority, via Order-in-Appeal No. 46/2025-TRY-ST-APP dated March 31, 2025, mechanically rejected the appeal on the sole ground that it was strictly barred by limitation, without entering into the merits of the case.
  • Aggrieved by both the recovery of the tax/penalty and the dismissal of the appeal, the petitioner filed two interconnected writ petitions [W.P.(MD) Nos. 3360 and 22328 of 2025] before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court.

Issues Involved

  • Whether the Appellate Authority was justified in dismissing the appeal purely as time-barred under statutory limitation constraints without considering the date of actual knowledge of the order, especially given the petitioner's severe medical incapacity (cancer) and the COVID-19 pandemic backdrop.
  • Whether the ex-parte Order-in-Original and subsequent coercive bank recovery violated the principles of natural justice, given the petitioner's inability to represent his case due to factors beyond his control.
  • Whether the petitioner is entitled to an immediate refund or reimbursement of the tax, interest, and penalty amounts already recovered by the Revenue department during the dependency of the dispute.

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The petitioner’s counsel argued that the initial SCN was issued in April 2021 amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, a time of widespread domestic and health disruptions.
  • It was strongly emphasized that the petitioner was an octogenarian (81 years old) battling debilitating cancer and age-related complications, making it humanly impossible for him to track notices or respond effectively.
  • The petitioner maintained that he had no legal or actual knowledge of the ex-parte order until his bank account was attached and funds were forcefully recovered by the department.
  • The counsel contended that the statutory limitation period for filing an appeal must logically commence from the date the taxpayer acquires actual knowledge of the order, rather than the date of its technical issuance.
  • It was further urged that since the foundational demand under the assessment order was heavily contested and fundamentally flawed, the entire amount coercively recovered by the department should be refunded immediately.

Respondent’s Arguments

  • The Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue strongly opposed the writ petitions, relying on the detailed counter-affidavits filed by the department.
  • The Revenue argued that the Show Cause Notice had been fully and legally served upon the petitioner in accordance with standard procedure.
  • It was contended that despite providing multiple opportunities for a personal hearing, the petitioner voluntarily chose not to submit any reply or appear before the Adjudicating Authority.
  • The department highlighted that the burden of proof strictly lay on the taxpayer to substantiate his business turnover and dispute the quantified short-paid service tax.
  • The Revenue stressed that the petitioner allowed the assessment order to attain finality and only rushed to the appellate forum as an afterthought once the statutory recovery proceedings were successfully executed.
  • Consequently, the department asserted that the Appellate Authority acted fully within its legal bounds to reject the appeal as time-barred, and since the assessment order had reached finality, the question of granting any refund was completely untenable.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Single Judge Bench of the Madras High Court, presided over by Hon'ble Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, acknowledged that the Order-in-Original was undeniably passed ex-parte.
  • The Court noted that it could not ignore the critical reality that the SCN was issued during the globally disruptive COVID-19 pandemic period.
  • Taking a deeply humane and balanced approach, the Court gave due weight to the advanced age of the petitioner (81 years) and his severe medical battle against cancer during the period the proceedings took place.
  • The High Court observed that while the initial failure to respond could technically be attributed to the petitioner, the peculiar, compassionate, and mitigating circumstances of this case demanded that he be given one final opportunity to defend himself on merits—especially since the department had already secured the entire tax, interest, and penalty amounts through recovery.
  • Concurrently, the Court ruled against the immediate refund of the recovered amounts, clarifying that the petitioner’s legal entitlement to a refund or adjustment would strictly depend on the final outcome of the fresh adjudication.
  • Final Directions of the Court:
    1. The ex-parte Order-in-Original dated August 24, 2022, and the Order-in-Appeal dated March 31, 2025, were formally set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh adjudication.
    2. The petitioner was directed to submit a comprehensive reply to the SCN along with all supporting documentary evidence within three weeks from receiving the web copy of the order.
    3. The Adjudicating Authority was directed to provide a fair opportunity for a personal hearing and pass a fresh speaking order purely on the merits of the case.
    4. The question of whether the recovered tax amount should be refunded, adjusted, or reimbursed will be decided by the competent authority based strictly on the outcome of this fresh adjudication.
    5. No costs were imposed, and all connected miscellaneous petitions were ordered closed.

Important Clarification

  • Adjudication Prior to Refund: A critical principle reiterated by the High Court is that even if an ex-parte assessment order is set aside due to violations of natural justice or severe personal hardships, the taxpayer cannot demand an immediate refund of taxes already recovered if the matter is remanded. The revenue remains secured with the department as a deposit, and its ultimate release or retention is entirely contingent upon the taxpayer succeeding on merits during the fresh, post-remand adjudication process.

Sections Involved

  • Article 226 of the Constitution of India: Invoked by the petitioner to seek a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus against the arbitrary recovery and the dismissal of the appeal on limitation grounds.
  • Service Tax Provisions (Finance Act, 1994) / Relevant GST & Central Excise Appellate Regulations: Pertaining to the determination of turnover, short-paid service tax, and the statutory limitation periods prescribed for filing appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals).

Link to download the order - https://mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783058163_307compressed.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.