The court emphasized that claimants must substantiate their exemption claims with credible documentation, and the existence of an effective alternative remedy limits the exercise of writ jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. U. K. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. S. C. Keyal, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of all the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 25.11.2022 passed by the Respondent No.2 thereby imposing a liability of service tax to the tune of Rs.2,27,27,960/- for the Financial Year 2016-17 and further penalty in terms with Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 along with interest.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE:

3. The brief facts which led to the filing of the instant writ petition are that a Demand cum Show Cause Notice was issued on 20.10.2021 alleging inter alia that the Petitioner had made willful suppression of material facts to evade payment of service tax to the tune of Rs.2,27,27,960/- including Krishi Kalyan Cess and Swachh Bharat Cess on the services rendered by the Petitioner during the Financial Year 2016-17 thereby violating the provisions of Sections 66B, 67 and 68 of Chapter-V of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 6 and 7 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. In addition to that, vide the said Show Cause Notice dated 20.10.2021, the Petitioner was also asked to show cause as to why penalty as well as interest as per the appropriate provisions of law should not be imposed upon the Petitioner.

4. To the said Show Cause Notice, the Petitioner submitted a reply on 15.11.2021. In the said reply, the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner was a registered civil contractor and the contract receipts are from none other than the Central Government and State Government Departments and under such circumstances, the Petitioner was exempted under the Mega Exemption Notification No.25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. In addition to that, the Petitioner has also mentioned in the said Show Cause Reply that as the Petitioner was a Goods Transport Agency, the liability to pay service tax is not upon the service tax provider rather it is upon the recipient of the service and in that regard, the Petitioner claimed benefits in terms with the Notification No.25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. It was also mentioned that the Petitioner provided service of transportation to Calcom Cements India Ltd. The Petitioner along with the said Show Cause reply also submitted that Bank Statement, 26AS, Audited Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account and in addition to that, the Petitioner also informed that if any other documents are needed for assessing, sufficient time may be granted to the Petitioner for submission of the same.

5. The record further reveals that the Petitioner was duly intimated vide a communication dated 26.10.2022 that a personal hearing would be afforded to the Petitioner on 02.11.2022 at 13:00 hours. The said personal hearing was taken up virtually at the request of the authorized person who represented the Petitioner. Thereupon, the Respondent No.2 passed an order dated 25.11.2022 thereby confirming the demand of service tax and cess amounting to Rs.2,27,27,960/- along with imposition of penalty of an equal amount in terms with Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and further an amount of Rs.10,000/- as penalty under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994.

It is also very pertinent to take note of that in the impugned order dated 25.11.2022, it was also mentioned that if the Petitioner deposited the entire amount of service tax within 30 days from the communication of the said order, there would be reduction of penalty imposed to the tune of 75% or in other words, the Petitioner would only have to pay a reduced penalty of 25%.

6. The Petitioner thereupon after almost a passage of 1 (one) year, appr