Service of show cause notice and order under Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 requires proof of delivery to ensure proper service. The provisions of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, cannot be invoked to establish deemed service in the absence of such proof.

JUDGMENT :

(Krishna Rao, J.) :

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ application challenging the letter dated August 7, 2020, letter dated September 16, 2020 and the Order dated March 6, 2018 issued by Superintendent, CGST and Central Excise, Range III, Siliguri Division imposing penalty of Rs. 7,58,764/-upon the petitioner under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

2. The petitioner is engaged in the service of providing vehicle on hire on a monthly basis with the respondent no. 5 i.e. the Siliguri Jalpaiguri Development Authority as on required basis since the year 2009 and also started providing vehicle to respondent no. 4 being North Bengal Development Department since the year 2012.

3. The Assistant Commissioner, Head Quarter, Anti-Evasion Unit for the first time on August 11, 2015 issued a letter to the petitioner for verification of Service Tax liability under the Finance Act, 1994 and requested the petitioner to submit necessary documents within seven days from the date of receipt of the letter.

4. On receipt of the said letter, the petitioner came to know that the service relating to “Rent-a-Cab” is also taxable service and required to be registered before the said Service Tax Department, accordingly, the petitioner got registration on September 10, 2015. As there was delay in complying with the letter dated August 11, 2015, the respondent no.2 again issued a letter dated August 26, 2015 and requested the petitioner to submit the document at the earliest.

5. After getting the registration of Service Tax, the respondent no. 2 had again issued a notice for enquiry of Service Tax liability on September 17, 2015 and the petitioner was asked to appear and produce the documents as mentioned in the said notice. As the petitioner was required to submit the details, the petitioner has requested the North Bengal Development Department for providing the service tax for the services provided so as to enable the petitioner to pay the service tax as demanded by the respondent no.2.

6. By a letter dated January 27, 2017, the Superintendent, CGST, Central Excise, and Service Tax, Siliguri Division had issued a demand notice requesting the petitioner to file ST-3 Return for the period from October–March 2015-16 and April-September 2016-2017 within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice.

7. On August 7, 2020, the respondent no. 3 had issued a letter calling upon the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 7,58,764/-including cess under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, late fee for the period from 2010-2011 to 2014-2015 under Section 70(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 and penalty of Rs. 30,000/-. The said notice was issued to the petitioner during the peak of Covid-19 pandemic and the petitioner could not deposit the same. Accordingly, the respondent no.3 issued a letter dated September 16, 2020 calling upon the petitioner for depositing of the said arrears in terms of the letter dated March 6, 2018. On receipt of the letter dated March 6, 2018, the petitioners enquired how an order is passed without any proceeding and requested for supply of the copy of the order but the respondents refused to supply the copy of the order to the petitioner.

8. Mr. Naivn Barik, learned Advocate representing the petitioner submitted that without issuing any show cause notice and without giving any opportunity of hearing, a notice of demand of service tax was issued to the petitioner on August 7, 2020 and September 16, 2020 by directing the petitioner to deposit the amount of Rs. 7,58,764/-and a penalty of Rs. 30,000/-. Mr. Barik submits that the respondents have directed the petitioner to deposit the said amount along with penalty without any demand as the petitioner has not received any demand from the respondents for the said amount.

9. Mr. Barik submitted that the purported order in original was passed on March 6, 2018 but the same was neither served to the petitioner nor informed to the petitioner. The petitioner came to know only