The provisions of the Finance Act, 1994, including Section 70, Section 72, Section 72A, and Section 73, must be interpreted in conjunction with the Constitution (101st Amendment) Act, 2016 and the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 to ensure the smooth and harmonious working of the legal framework.

JUDGMENT :

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the demand-cum-show cause notice dated 07.05.2019 as well as the service tax audit conducted by the officers of the Dibrugarh Audit Circle-II.

2. The facts involved in the instant case are that the petitioner herein is a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013. The petitioner Company was registered under Section 69 of the Finance Act, 1994 (for short, ‘the Act of 1994’) read with Rule 4 of Service Tax Rules, 1994. The petitioner Company was issued a Registration Number bearing No.AAACW3347DSD002 for providing various taxable services under the categories of ‘Business Auxiliary Services’, ‘Man Power or Security Agency Services’, ‘Rent-a-Cab Operator Services’, ‘Supply of Tangible Goods Services’ and ‘Works Contract Services’.

3. The respondent No.4 herein had issued a communication on 18.03.2016 informing the petitioner that the petitioner’s unit was scheduled to be audited by the Central Excise & Service Tax Audit Party and the petitioner was requested to submit the various documents for the last 5 years or since the financial year of last audit to the respondent No.4 latest by 05.04.2016. It was further mentioned in the said communication that the petitioner has to keep all the records ready from start of the business for inspection during audit. Pursuant to the said communication, the petitioner on 05.04.2016 submitted the various documents on various dates which would be apparent from a perusal of the documents annexed as Annexure-P-4. It reveals from the said documents that the same related to the period from April, 2012 to March, 2015. It is further seen from the documents enclosed as Annexure-P-4 that the respondent No.4 had made an audit report on 02.02.2017 for the period from April, 2012 to March, 2015.

4. Subsequent thereto, it is also seen from the Annexure-P-1 that the respondent No.4 issued another communication dated 17.08.2017 informing the petitioner that the petitioner’s unit would be audited by the Central Excise and Service Tax Audit Party and the petitioner was requested to submit the various documents for the last 5 financial years, i.e. 2012-13 to 2016-2017 or next to the period of the last audit up to 30.06.2017 on 24.08.2017. It is also seen from the records that the petitioner duly participated in the said audit being carried out by the Central Excise and Service Tax Audit Party without any objection. This aspect of the matter is apparent from a perusal of the Annexure-P-5 whereby the Petitioner submitted its reply to the on spot audit objections raised by the team of auditors in pursuance of the service tax audit conducted on the basis of the communication dated 17.08.2017.

5. The record further shows that on 07.05.2019, the Additional Commissioner (Audit) having its Office within the establishment of the respondent No.2 had issued the impugned demand-cum-show cause notice to the petitioner. In the said demand-cum-show cause notice, it was mentioned that during the course of audit undertaken by the Officers of the Dibrugarh Audit Circle-II, Dibrugarh, it was observed that the petitioner had either short paid or not paid service tax against Works Contract Service, Business Auxiliary Service, Rent-a-Cab Scheme Operator Service, Transport of Goods by Road, Man Power or Security/Detective Agency Service & Legal Consultancy Service during the period from April, 2015 to March, 2017. It was also mentioned that the petitioner had not paid the interest against delayed payment of service tax and also had not paid the late fee on delayed submission of ST-3 return for the period from October, 2016 to March, 2017 and wrongly availed CENVAT credit on input services and capital goods during April, 2015 to March, 2017. On the basis of the statements made in the said demand-cum-show cause notice, the petitioner was asked to reply within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of the said notice as to why the se