Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.—Heard Mr. D.V. Pathy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Sadashiv Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. K.N. Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General assisted by Mr. Anshuman Singh, learned Senior Standing Counsel, CGST & CX for the respondents.

2. This writ application has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:—

(i) the order dated 02.01.2024 (as contained in Annexure – P2) passed by the respondent no. 2 for the Period 2015 – 2016 and 2016 – 17 proposing levy of Service Tax, interest and penalty without a pre-show cause consultation as per Master Circular No. 1053/02/2017 – CX dated 10.03.2017 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs and subsequently clarified by Circular dated 19.11.2020 be set aside quashed.

(ii) the order dated 02.01.2024 (as contained in Annexure – P 2) passed by the respondent no. 1 for the Period 2015 – 2016 and 2016 – 17 imposing Service Tax, interest and penalty without consideration of the exemption Notification No. 25/2012 – Service Tax dated 20.06.2012 issued by the Central Government beyond the period of limitation being wholly without jurisdiction be set aside and quashed.

(iii) for granting any other relief (s) to which the petitioner is otherwise found entitled to.”

Brief Facts of the Case

3. The petitioner is engaged in the business of transportation of goods who entered into an agreement on 05.02.2014 with the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (hereinafter called ‘Corporation’) for transportation of foodgrains and other essential commodities within a district or to other district and from outside the State including handling and temporary storage etc. A show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner by the respondent no. 1 stating that he is providing taxable service and has suppressed the taxable turnover for the Financial Year 2015 – 16 and 2016 – 17. However, the petitioner denies about receiving such notice and stated that he has received reminder only to the show cause notice. The said show cause notice has not been complied with. The respondent no. 1 passed an ex parte order holding therein inter alia that the petitioner is engaged in providing taxable services under Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1994’) with the subsequent amendments and does not fall under any of the entries of the Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012-Service Tax dated 20.06.2012 as amended. The respondent no. 1 held vide order dated 02.01.2024 as contained in Annexure ‘P2’ (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned order’) that the petitioner has suppressed taxable turnover in contravention of the provisions of the Act of 1994 and imposed service tax of Rs.1,26,03,035/- and an equivalent penalty among other penalty and interest.

Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on various grounds. Referring to the impugned order, learned Senior Counsel submits that a perusal of the same would show that the proceeding in the instant case was initiated by issuance of a demand-cum-show cause notice dated 28.04.2021 to this petitioner. It is his submission that the Assessing Authority has passed the impugned order (Annexure ‘P2’) with respect to financial years 2015 – 16 and 2016 – 17. Every assessment year is a self-contained assessment year and separate returns are filed, therefore, it was incumbent upon the Assessing Authority to issue separate show cause notices.

5. Learned senior counsel submits that the show cause notice issued on 28.04.2021 would be between the period of limitation as prescribed under Sub-Section (1) of Section 73 of the Act of 1994. During the relevant period, the period of limitation prescribed for notice was 18 months only but in this case, the notice was issued after five years and four years respectively from the relevant date. It is, thus, submitted that the very issuance of the show cause notice woul