Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:54269-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 250 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/s Ravinder Singh Respondent :- Union of India and 2 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Prakash Mathur Counsel for Respondent :- Saumitra Singh, A.S.G.I., Gaurav Mahajan, Mithilesh Ch. Tripathi Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 24.11.2022 passed by Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax Division, Saharanpur (Annexure-2), whereby demand and recovery of service tax amounting to Rs. 5,22,183/- has been confirmed along with interest and a penalty of Rs. 5,22,183/- has been imposed besides a fee of Rs. 60,000/- for non filing of service tax returns for the period April 2016 to September 2016, October 2016 to March 2017 and April 2017 to June 2017. 2. It is, inter alia, indicated in the petition that petitioner is a contractor and is providing works contract and manpower supply services and is having a service tax registration for the same. It is claimed that a show- cause notice (Annexure-1) dated 13.10.2021 was issued to the petitioner alleging failure of the petitioner to respond to the notices issued seeking clarification regarding difference between value of services from ITR and gross value provided in ST-3 and difference between value of services credited in TDS from gross value provided in ST-3. It was alleged that no response was given by the petitioner despite service of notice on counsel representing the petitioner before the Superintendent (Prev.), Customs and Central GST Division, Saharanpur and, as such, the petitioner was called upon to show cause in this regard. 3. The notice was sent to petitioner's address at Village Kallapur, Rajput, P.O. Nanauta, District Saharanpur, however, it is claimed that same was not received by the petitioner. Submissions have been made that the purported service of the notice on 22.10.2021 on petitioner's wife at the said address is baseless inasmuch as the petitioner had already divorced her. The address of the petitioner is as indicated by him in the writ petition and, therefore, in absence of the notice, no response to the show-cause notice could be filed resulting in passing of the ex-parte order. The petitioner on coming to know of passing of the order impugned, filed service tax appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Goods and Service Tax, Meerut, which came to be dismissed as barred by limitation on 30.09.2024. 4. Submissions have been made that the order impugned has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the show cause notice was not served on the petitioner as the same was sent to the address where he was not residing and it is incumbent on the respondents to serve the notice personally, which in the present case has not been done, rather the same has been served on his divorced wife, the petitioner has been deprived of contesting the same and has been condemned unheard and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. Instructions have been produced by learned Standing Counsel, inter alia, relying on the service of the show cause notice on wife of the petitioner. Further submissions have been made that the show cause notice has been sent through e-mail also on 21.10.2021 and, therefore, the plea raised pertaining to non service of notice on the petitioner cannot be accepted and the petition, therefore, deserves dismissal. 6. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 7. From the material produced by the respondents, it is apparent that though the petitioner was represented before the Superintendent (Prev.), Customs and Central GST Division, Saharanpur by counsel Mr. H.K. Arora, after the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, there was no representation. Qua the notice served on the wife of the petitioner, acknowledgement whereof has been placed along with the instructions, the claim made before the appellate authority as well as in the present writ petition is that there has been a separation/divorce between the petitioner and his wife and that he was not residing at the given address. Despite raising a specific plea in this regard, the said aspect has not been disputed by the respondents. In that view of the matter, it is apparent that the petitioner was not served with the show- cause notice. So far as the service through e-mail is concerned, as to whether the same was delivered or not and/or accessed by the petitioner or not cannot be deciphered from the material placed on record. 8. In the overall fact situation of the case, wherein apparently the service of show cause notice on the petitioner is not established, we deem it appropriate and, therefore, set aside the order dated 24.11.2022 as well as the appellate order dated 30.09.2024 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) and remand back the matter to respondent no. 2. 9. The petitioner shall appear before the respondent no. 2 on 29.04.2025 along with his reply to the show cause notice and all the documents, if any. On production of the response, the respondent no. 2 would provide opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. Order Date :- 10.4.2025 P.Sri. (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- PUNEET SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad