Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 15681
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ, G.M. MOHIUDDIN, J
M/s. IMG Systems Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India – Respondent
Writ Petition No.27648 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Chanakya Basa
For the Respondents: Mr. B. Mukherjee, Mr. Dominic Fernandes
Failure to notify address change leading to liability enforcement without notice is not grounds for appeal; delay beyond statutory limits undermines claims of natural justice.
Headnote:(A) Finance Act, 1994 - Section 73(2) - Service Tax Rules, 1994 - Sub-rule 5A of Rule 4 - Impugned Order-in-Original (OIO) challenged for non-service of show cause notice and violation of principles of natural justice - Petitioner failed to notify change of address, leading to liability without proper service - Delay in filing the writ petition beyond statutory appeal period affects maintainability. (Paras 2, 5, 6, 7)
(B) Limitation Period - The petitioner's failure to inform about the address change was held against them, negating the argument of lack of notice - It was determined that the petitioner could not claim a lack of notice due to their own inaction. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a private limited company in the IT services sector, was liable for payments under the Finance Act after an OIO was issued without notice due to a change of address not communicated to authorities.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the petitioner changed its address without following required procedures and delayed in seeking judicial relief, thus the OIO stands affirmed.
Issues: The main issues addressed included whether the failure to inform the change of address affects the service of notice and the implications of seeking legal relief beyond the limitation period.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that non-compliance with procedural requirements for notifying address changes negated claims of improper notice, and delay in approach denied the validity of the writ petition.
Result: Writ Petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the petitioner asserts lack of notice due to an address change. (Para 2) |
| 2. rules require timely notification of address changes. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. delay in appeal invalidates claims regarding notice service. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. court concludes on the dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 7 , 8) |
ORDER:
Heard Mr.Chanakya Basa, learned counsel appears for Mr.Koripel Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.B.Mukherjee, learned counsel appears for respondent No.1 and Mr.Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs appears for respondents No.2 and 3.
2. Petitioner is a private limited company engaged in the business of providing information technology services, including export of software and technical services, to clients outside India. It has been saddled with a liability of Rs.4,90,308/- with applicable interest and penalty, vide Order–in-Original (OIO) dated 30.09.2023 under Section 73(2) of the Finance Act , 1994 (for short, ‘the Act’). Petitioner alleges that no show cause notice dated 17.06.2022 was served upon it, as its business was changed from previous address – ‘H.No.1-8-271, Flat No.306, 3rd Floor, Ashok Bhopal Chambers, S.P.Road, Secunderabad-500003’, to its current address – ‘Villa No.73, Ashoka A la Maison, Dulapally, Kompally, Hyderabad-500014’. Petitioner also contends that the OIO was passed without any personal hearing. Petitioner has come to know of the liability only upon issuance of recovery notice dated 25.11.2024, whereafter its bank account was closed. It has approached this Court on 04.09.2025. It prays for quashing of the impugned OIO dated 30.09.2023, as it is not only time barred but is also passed in violation of principles of natural justice. As per the statement made at para 5 of the writ petition, it is evident that the petitioner has changed its previous address to a new address.
3. Sub-rule (5A) of Rule 4 of the Service Tax Rules , 1994 (for short, ‘the Rules’), reads as under:
“(5A) Where there is a change in any information or details furnished by an assessee in Form ST-1 at the time of obtaining registration or he intends to furnish any additional information or detail, such change or information or details shall be intimated, in writing, by the assessee, to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, within a period of thirty days of such change.”
4. The above sub-rule (5A) of Rule 4 of the Rules prescribes that any change in any information or details furnished in Form ST-1, if required, should be furnished by an assessee by way of intimation in writing to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise. Hence, the petitioner had to furnish information within a period of 30 days of such change in its address. However, there is no statement in the writ petition that any such intimation was sent. The petitioner had changed its address on its own without intimation to the respondents-authorities.
5. It is also alleged that no show cause notice was served upon it nor personal hearing was allowed before passing the impugned OIO. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that even if it is assumed that the petitioner came to know of the impugned OIO only upon issuance of recovery proceedings dated 25.11.2024, it has preferred the present writ petition only on 04.09.2025, i.e. much beyond the period prescribed for appeal before the appellate authority under Section 85 of the Act. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, [(2020) 19 SCC 681] and submits that the plea relating to non-service of show cause notice and violation of principles of natural justice are untenable, for the reason that the petitioner had changed its address without intimation to the jurisdiction
