The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to natural justice principles and timely adjudication, as well as the requirement to consider all relevant documents before passing an order.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant writ application has been filed challenging Order-in-Original: 02-03/S.Tax/Commissioner/2022 dated 25.07.2022 passed by Respondent No.2 primarily on the ground that said order has been passed in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice as the documents furnished by Petitioner on 12.01.2021 giving detailed reconciliation and documentary evidences have not been considered by the adjudicating authority, and, also on the ground that adjudication order has been passed after a lapse of about more than 18 months from the date of the final hearing, thereby violating Clause 14.10 of Master Circular No. 1053/02/2017-CX dated 10th March, 2017, which provides, inter alia, that after conclusion of personal hearing, decision is required to be communicated as expeditiously as possible, but not later than one month in any case, barring in exceptional circumstances to be recorded in the file.

2. The petitioner company is engaged in the business of executing various electromechanical jobs for bulk material handling equipment, and also has its manufacturing unit in Jamshedpur dedicated towards electromechanical jobs, Industrial Structure, Fabrication and Life Cycle Services and allied services. Petitioner was duly registered under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994, and, for the periods in dispute i.e. 2012-13 to 2015-16 and the periods between 2016-17 to 2017-18 (1st Quarter), the petitioner duly filed its Service Tax Returns being ST-3 Returns. However, on 03.01.2017, Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice pertaining to the periods 2012-13 to 2015-16 was issued to the Petitioner primarily stating, inter alia, that information from third party was received by Respondent-Department regarding mismatch of the figures of service income/receipts declared by the assessee in its Income Tax Returns and 26AS statements, vis-à-vis value declared in Service Tax Returns ((ST-3) for the corresponding period. It was alleged that figures of the value declared in ST-3 Returns were found to be on lower side with respect to the value of service income/receipts declared in Income Tax Return/26AS, thus, leading to apprehension of suppression of taxable value. Accordingly, Show Cause Notice was issued asking the Petitioner to show cause as to why on the differential amount as reflected in 26AS statements and the value of services provided, declared in ST-3 Return, be not treated as suppressed taxable value; and levy of service tax and also levy of interest and penalty thereupon be not imposed.

3. Pursuant to the Show Cause Notice pertaining to the periods 2012-13 to 2015-16, Petitioner submitted its reply dated 09.07.2018, and, primarily contended, inter alia, that before issuance of the Show Cause

Notice at the investigation stage itself, Petitioner brought to the notice of Respondent-authorities that the figures in Form 26AS pertaining to deduction of TDS also included the TDS deducted wrongly on the value of invoices related to supply of materials on which service tax liability does not arise, and, primarily for the said reason there was difference in the figures of 26AS statements and ST-3 Returns.

4. After the aforesaid first Show Cause Notice dated 03.11.2017, personal hearing was held before the adjudicating authority namely, Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax & Central Excise, Jamshedpur Commissionerate (Respondent No.2) on 10.07.2018 and 09.08.2018, but said hearing remained unconcluded and no order was passed pursuant to said hearing.

Thereafter, on 15.04.2019, Petitioner was issued another Statement of Demand (Show Cause) for the periods 2016-17 to 2017-18 (first quarter) under section 73(1A) of the Finance Act, 1994 on the same set of allegations as contained in earlier Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice dated 03.11.2017. Consequent upon issuance of the second Show Cause Notice, Petitioner duly replied to the said Notice vide its reply dated 19th July, 2019. Thereafter, vide Notice dated 29.10.2020, both the Show Cause