2026:JHHC:2675-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(T) No. 90 of 2026 Sakiluzzaman Khan @ Shakiluzzaman Khan, S/o Late Alamgir Khan, R/o House No. 244, Alamgir House, Alam Nagar Jamadoba, Bhaga, Dhanbad ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi 2. Assistant Commissioner, CGST & CX South Division, Sub- Commissionerate, Dhanbad, 8th Floor, Ozone Centre, Ashok Nagar, Bank More, Dhanbad 3. Superintendent, CGST & CX Preventive, Dhanbad, Sub- Commissionerate, Dhanbad, 8th Floor, Ozone Centre, Ashok Nagar, Bank More, Dhanbad ... … Respondents 4. M/s. AKA Logistics Pvt. Ltd., through the Director, Himsagar Apartment, Ground Floor, Kusum Bihar, Koyalanagar, PO-BCCL Township, PS-Bank More, District-Dhanbad ... … Proforma Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Mokhtar Khan, Advocate Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent-CGST : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Sr. SC Mr. Anurag Vijay, Jr. SC Mr. Vishwajeet Singh, Advocate ----- Order No. 03 Dated: 03.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. Mokhtar Khan, who appears with Mr. Niranjan Kumar for the petitioner and Mr. P.A.S. Pati, assisted by Mr. Anurag Vijay for the respondents. 2. For the order that we propose to make, notice to the proforma respondent is unnecessary. 3. The petitioner challenges the impugned order dated 26.12.2018 raising a service demand of Rs.16,04,689/- with a penalty in a like amount primarily on the ground of failure of natural justice. 4. Mr. Mokhtar Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that though the impugned order was made on 26.12.2018, the same was never served upon the petitioner. The petitioner got knowledge of this order only after he received a recovery notice 2026:JHHC:2675-DB 2 dated 07.01.2025 on 08.01.2025 since, the copy of the impugned order was enclosed along with such notice. He submitted that though the impugned order refers to notices being served upon the petitioner, in fact, no such notices were received by him. 5. Based upon all this, Mr Mokhtar Khan submits that this is a case of failure of natural justice which is one of the well-known exceptions for not relegating the petitioner to avail of the alternate statutory remedy provided under the law. 6. Mr Mokhtar Khan, on instruction, submitted that the petitioner, in order to show his bona fide, is willing to pay approximately 50% of the service tax amount of Rs. 16,04,689/- under protest and without prejudice. He, however, points out that the petitioner’s Savings Bank Account No. 31456320556 with the State Bank of India, Digwadih, Dhanbad has been frozen by the respondents. He further points out that approximately Rs. 10,00,000/- is held in this bank account. He submitted that the petitioner would have no objection if an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- is appropriated from this account towards the alleged service tax dues, without prejudice to the petitioner’s contentions that no service tax is liable to be paid. 7. Based upon this, Mr Mokhtar Khan submitted that this is a fit case for granting the petitioner an additional opportunity so that the issue of liability to pay service tax could be determined in a fair and just manner. 8. Mr. P.A.S. Pati and Mr. Anurag Vijay, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that full opportunity was granted to the petitioner and in any event, he has the remedy of appeal. They 2026:JHHC:2675-DB 3 submitted that, since the petitioner failed to honour the service tax demand, action was required to freeze his bank account. They submitted that the liability to pay service tax has been correctly determined and, therefore, no relief should be granted to this petitioner. 9. We have considered the rival contentions, and in the peculiar facts of this case, we think that the petitioner has made out a case for the grant of an additional opportunity. This is more so because the petitioner, to show his bona fide, has agreed to pay approximately 50% of the service tax demanded amounting to Rs. 8,00,000/- to the respondents, no doubt, without prejudice to his rights and contentions that no such service tax is in fact payable. 10. Though there is a reference to service of notices upon the petitioner, there is an issue of the address of such notices to the correct address. Similarly, although the assessment order was made on 16.12.2018, there was no proper proof of service of the order upon the petitioner. A copy of this order was annexed to the recovery notice dated 07.01.2025. 11. Considering the above aspects, we do think that there was a failure of natural justice, due to which the impugned order warrants interference without requiring the petitioner to avail of the alternate remedy provided under the law. The issue of revenue interest can also be addressed now that the petitioner has offered to pay approximately 50% of the service tax demanded, without prejudice to his rights and contentions. 12. Therefore, in the peculiar facts of the present case and with a view 2026:JHHC:2675-DB 4 to granting the petitioner an additional opportunity, we dispose of this petition by making the following order: - (a) The impugned order dated 26.12.2018 and the recovery notice dated 07.01.2025 are hereby set aside. (b) The respondents are permitted to appropriate an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- from the petitioner’s frozen bank account. However, such appropriation shall be without prejudice to the petitioner’s rights and contentions that no amount is payable by him towards service tax. (c) If, for any reason, an amount more than Rs. 8,00,000/- is not available in the petitioner’s above-referred bank account, then he must pay Rs. 8,00,000/- to the respondents, latest by 27.02.2026, without seeking any extension. (d) Upon appropriation of the amount of Rs. 8,00,000/-, or its payment, the order freezing the petitioner’s bank account shall be lifted or shall stand nullified by this order; (e) The petitioner should now appear before the Assistant Commissioner/Competent Authority, Central Goods and Services Tax, South Division at Dhanbad, 9th Floor, Ozone Centre, Ashok Nagar, Dhanbad- 828106 on 10.03.2026 at 11.00 a.m. On this date or on such further date as could be decided by the Assistant Commissioner/Competent Authority, an opportunity of hearing should be granted to the petitioner, and the proceedings should then be disposed of in accordance with law within 2 months. 2026:JHHC:2675-DB 5 13. 2026:JHHC:2675-DB 5 13. We clarify that if the aforesaid amount of Rs 8,00,000/-is not paid by the petitioner, then this petition shall stand dismissed with a cost of Rs. 50,000/- payable by him to the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority (JHALSA). This is in addition to the proceedings for Contempt of Court, which this Court may deem it appropriate to initiate against such petitioner. 14. The petitioner agrees not to raise the issue of limitation now that this order is being made at his behest. All contentions of all parties on the merits are, however, left open. 15. The petition is allowed in the above terms. 16. Subject to paragraph 13, no costs for the present. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) February 03, 2026 Manish/Ritesh N.A.F.R. Uploaded on 09.02.2026