Service Tax
TRT-2025-
Orissa High Court
Date:-24-06-25
In:-
Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:-
Order Date – 24 June 2025
Parties: Palem Ashok Reddy, Proprietor of M/s. GNR Construction Vs The Commissioner, GST & CX Commissionerate Rourkela, The Commissioner, CGST & CX Audit Commissionerate and The Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Aurangabad
Facts –
- The Petitioner, Palem Ashok Reddy, Proprietor of M/s GNR Construction, acting as a sub-contractor during FYs 2015–16 and 2016–17, received two separate assessment orders for the same period passed by the Commissioner, GST & CX, Rourkela and passed after a hearing by the Commissioner, CGST & CX (Audit), Nashik.
- The petitioner claimed the Rourkela order was passed without notice or hearing, and he only received the order on 02.04.2025, long after it was passed. The postal records indicated the notice from Rourkela was returned unserved with the remark “addressee cannot be located.”
Issue –
- Whether two separate assessment orders can be passed for the same financial years by two different authorities?
Order –
- The Divisional Bench of Hon’ble High Court observed that when multiple assessment orders exist for the same assessment year in respect of same assessee with respect to identical subject-matter, the order that addresses the merits of the case generally takes precedence over an ex parte order (an order issued in the absence of the taxpayer).
- This is because an ex parte order is typically made without considering the taxpayer’s arguments, evidence, or objections/ explanation, if any. The order based on merit reflects application of mind in decision making and thorough examination of the facts and law being made, such order is preferred to be sustained rather than the order which is passed in absence of the assessee for want of service of notice.
- Further, there cannot be any cavil that justice dictates that a person who had no opportunity to defend themselves against the making of an order should not be placed in a worse position than they would have been in had they been able to fully participate in the proceedings leading to the order. A decision, therefore, made after hearing is more authoritative than a default decision.
- Hence the court Court is, therefore, inclined to entertain this writ petition by quashing the ex parte Assessment Order.
Download Case Law
