2024:BHC-AS:5388-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1085 OF 2024 Adv. Pooja Patil ..Petitioner Versus The Deputy Commissioner, CGST and CX Division VI, Raigad Commissionerate & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Chetan Kapadia a/w Ruturaj Pawar, for the Petitioner.

Ms. Sangeeta Yadav a/w Ashutosh Mishra, for the Respondents.

CORAM : G. S. KULKARNI &

KISHORE C. SANT, JJ.

DATE : 24th JANUARY, 2024 Oral Judgment : (Per G. S. Kulkarni, J.)

1. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assails an Order-in-Original dated 26^th October, 2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, CGST and C. Excise, Raigad, whereby an amount of Rs.35,82,298/- towards service tax under the provisions of Section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, has been ordered to be recovered from the Petitioner inter- alia with interest and penalty. The operative part of the impugned order reads thus :-

“ORDER (i) I confirm the Service Tax demand of Rs.35,82,298/- (Rupees Thirty Five lakh Eighty Two Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Eight Only) (including E. Cess SHE Cess, Swachh Bharat Cess and Krishi Kalyan Cess as and where applicable) under the proviso to Section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act, 2017) and the same should be recovered from M/s.

Pooja Chandrashekhar Patil forthwith.

(ii) I order recovery of Interest at appropriate rates and as applicable in force, on the demand confirmed at (I) above, under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 from M/s. Pooja Chandrashekhar Patil.

(iii) I impose Penalty of Rs.35,82,298/- on M/s. Pooja Chandrashekhar Patil under the provisions of Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, however, the benefit of reduced penalty is available to M/s. Pooja Chandrashekhar Patil in terms of Second proviso to Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

(iv) I impose Penalty of Rs.10,000/- on M/s. Pooja Chandrashekhar Patil under Section 771(1)(c) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, as discussed under para 15.4 above.

(v) I impose Penalty of Rs.10,000/- on M/s. Pooja Chandrashekhar Patil under Section 77(1)(a) of the Finance Act, 1994 for failure to take registration in accordance with the provisions of section 69 of the Finance Act, 1994, as discussed under para 15.5 above.

(vi) I impose Late fee of Rs.1,20,000/- under Section 70(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 7(C) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 for late/non filing of ST-3 returns beyond the due date and order recovery of the same from M/s. Pooja Chandrashekhar Patil, as discussed under para

15.6 above.”

2. The Petitioner has contended that she is an advocate practicing in this Court. The primary contention of the Petitioner in assailing the impugned order is to the effect that Respondent No.1 in passing the impugned order has acted in patent lack of jurisdiction, hence, interference of this Court in the present proceeding would be justified. It is contended that apart from this, there are several procedural illegalities, amounting to a breach of the principles of natural justice, in passing such order.

3. The Petitioner has contended that on 5^th October, 2023, an email was received by the Petitioner to attend a hearing on 17^th October, 2023, on which date, the Petitioner appeared through her Chartered Accountant. On 18^th October, 2023, the Petitioner addressed a letter to the Designated Officer attaching an email dated 5^th October, 2023 which merely referred to the show-cause notice dated 24^th December, 2020, which was never received by the Petitioner. It was recorded that even the Chartered Accountant who represented the Petitioner was not furnished a copy of the show-cause notice, as also the website referred only to the personal hea