Page 98 - GSTL_7th May 2020_Vol 36_Part 1

56 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 36
2. Mr. M.A. Mudi Mannan is agreeable to the Assessing Authori-
ty/2nd respondent affording a pre-decisional consultative hearing, at this
stage. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents also expresses
no objections to this suggestion of hearing the petitioner by way of pre-
adjudication consultative process, prior to proceeding with the show cause
notice, if at all.
3. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid and without this being a prece-
dent, the petitioner is permitted to appear before the 2nd respondent on
Thursday, 2nd January, 2020 at 10.30 a.m. without expecting any further
notice in this regard. Let appropriate orders be passed by the Assessing Au-
thority, after hearing the petitioner, uninfluenced by the remarks/order
passed by the Audit team.
3. The petitioner appeared before the second respondent on 2-1-2020
and after hearing the petitioner a pre-adjudication consultation has been afford-
ed and a pre-consultative order passed by the Assessing Officer on 9-1-2020. The
petitioner has been heard on the following five points as crystallized by the Of-
ficer :
Point Nos. 1 & 2 : Short payment of Service Tax on account of mis-
representating construction agreement as composite works contract and
discharging Service tax @ 40% of the gross amount - V.O. Chidamparanar
Port, RITES and DBGT projects
Point No. 3 : Incorrect adoption of value on Works Contract Service on
office and lab interior work (Alex Stewart International P. Ltd.)
Point No. 4 : Incorrect adoption of value on Works Contract Service on
Maintenance or Repair of immovable property (Chennai Urology and Robotics
Institutes P. Ltd.).
Point No. 5 : Incorrect adoption of value on Works Contract Service on
Maintenance or Repair of immovable property (Gurudev Motors).
He has finally come to the conclusion that there could be no amicable resolution
of the matter inter se the parties. Order dated 9-1-2020 has been made available to
the Learned Counsel for the petitioner who agrees that the five points in respect
of which the adjudicative/consultative proceedings were conducted are identical
to those raised in the show cause notice. With the passing of order dated 9-1-
2020, the proceedings stand regularised and proceedings for assess-
ment/adjudication would thus have to go on.
4. What remains, is to deal with paragraph 11 of the impugned show
cause notice, where the Officer refers to the discussion that the assessee has had
with the Audit Commissioner and, based on such discussion, comes to the con-
clusion that there would be no purpose served by pre-adjudication/consultation.
5. Evidently, the pre-adjudication/consultation envisaged is with the
Assessing Officer and not with the Audit Commissioner and this error has been
rectified by order dated 9-1-2020. To this extent paragraph 11 of the impugned
show cause notice is set aside. With the regularisation of the procedure, proceed-
ings under the impugned show cause notice will continue.
6. The petitioner is at liberty to file objections to the SCN within two
weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this order and proceedings will be com-
pleted by the Assessing Officer after hearing the petitioner in person.

GST LAW TIMES  7th May 2020  98