The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Circulars issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs are binding on the Revenue Department, and the violation of the same will make the actions of the Respondent illegal and ex-facie bad in law.

JUDGMENT :

Deepak Roshan, J.

The instant application has been preferred for the following reliefs:-

(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) including a writ of certiorari for quashing/setting aside the Order In Original, dated 19.05.2022 and bearing reference No. 31/ST/ADC/RAN/2022, passed by Respondent No.4 (Annexure-3) whereby the petitioner has been imposed with the liability of (i) service tax amounting to Rs.1,23,52,604/for the period 2015-16 to 2017-18 (Upto June, 2017) under Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 along with applicable interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994, (ii) Penalty amounting to Rs.10,000/under section 77(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, (iii) Penalty amounting to Rs.1,23,52,604/under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, since the said order is bad in law, has been passed beyond the prescribed period of limitation and is against the Provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 read with the rules under Service Tax Rules, 1994.

(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) including a writ of certiorari for setting aside the Demand-Cum-Notice to Show Cause, dated 23.10.2019 and bearing reference no. F. No. 34/DGCEI/JRU/ST/SCM/Gr.B/2018, issued by Respondent No.3 (Annexure-1) since the said Demand cum Notice to Show Cause is illegal, barred by period of limitation, arbitrary, unreasonable and against the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 read with the prescribed rules under Service Tax Rules, 1994.

(iii) For issuance of any other appropriate Writ(s), order(s), and/or direction(s), as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case and in the interest of justice.

2. The brief facts as disclosed in the instant writ application is that the Petitioner is primarily engaged in the business of renting of immovable property and was registered under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 having registration no. AADFLO737ASD001 and was regularly filing its service tax returns and had duly paid its service tax liabilities.

Respondent No. 2 conducted a search on 23.10.2018 at the office premises of the Petitioner. Respondent No.3 issued a Demand cum Notice to Show Cause, dated 23.10.2019 bearing No. F. No. 34/DGCEI/JRU/ST/SCM/Gr.B/2018/3005, to the Petitioner for the period April, 2014 to June, 2017 by invoking extended period of limitation and impose a service tax liability of Rs.1,23,52,604/for the period 2014-15 to 2017-18 (Upto June, 2017) and had also proposed to impose penalties.

Pursuant thereto, the petitioner on 09.02.2021 had filed its reply to the allegation of the Respondent Department. Thereafter, the Respondent No.4, after a substantial delay, had passed the Order-in-Original, dated 19.05.2022 bearing No. 31/ST/ADC/RAN/2022, adjudicating Demand cum Show Cause Notice bearing No. F. No. 34/DGCEI/JRU/ST/SCM/Gr.B/2018/3005 dated 23.10.2019.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the Impugned Order was provided to the Petitioner on 27.05.2022 and the same is ex-facie bad in law as has been passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 73 (4B) of the Finance Act, 1994 and the Instruction dated 18.11.2021 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs.

4. Mr. Rahul Lamba, learned counsel for the petitioner made following submissions: -

(i) The impugned proceedings have been made for alleged suppression of facts under Proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 by invoking the extended period of limitation of five years for initiation of proceedings, but the Order-in-Original does not reflect any finding as to the willful suppression of facts or fraud for invoking the extended period of limitation. Reliance is placed on the case of Uniworth Textiles Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur [(2013) 9 SCC 753].

(ii) The impugned Order-in-Original is also in teeth of the period prescribed under Section 73(4B) of the Finance Act, 1994 as the same has been issued approximately after three years f