Page 85 - GSTL_21st May 2020_Vol 36_Part 3

2020 ] KIN-SHIP SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 331
2020 (36) G.S.T.L. 331 (Kar.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Ravi Malimath and M.I. Arun, JJ.
KIN-SHIP SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
1
Writ Appeal No. 3794 of 2019 (T-RES), decided on 12-2-2020
Adjudication - Cross-examination - Dispute relating to Cenvat credit
availment without declaration in ST-3 returns - Single judge holding that
cross-examination cannot be claimed as matter of right and providing oppor-
tunity to petitioners to adduce any evidence to substantiate its stand - Ques-
tion of cross-examination of petitioner by himself and adjudicating authority
would not arise - Rights of petitioners protected as liberty granted to adduce
any evidence to substantiate their stand with direction to authority to consider
same and pass appropriate orders - No denial of rights of petitioners - Well
reasoned order of single judge protecting legal rights of petitioners affirmed -
Section 33A of Central Excise Act, 1944 as applicable to Service Tax vide Sec-
tion 83 of Finance Act, 1994. [paras 7, 8]
Appeal dismissed
REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri Sreenath V.K. for Thomas Vellapally, Advo-
cates, for the Appellant.
Shri K.V. Aravind, Advocate, for the Respondent.
[Judgment per : Ravi Malimath J.]. - Aggrieved by the order dated 26-3-
2019 passed in Writ Petition Nos. 40985 and 42354 of 2017 by the Learned Single
Judge [2020 (32) G.S.T.L. 45 (Kar.)], in disposing of the writ petitions by rejecting
the plea of the writ petitioners, but, however, granting an opportunity to the writ
petitioners to adduce their evidence to substantiate their case and restoring the
proceedings on the file of the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax,
the writ petitioners are in appeal.
2. The case of the petitioners is that, the first petitioner is a private lim-
ited company and the second petitioner is its Managing Director. The writ peti-
tioners have challenged the show cause notice issued by the respondent No. 3.
The amount of service tax due from petitioner No. 1 from April, 2013 to Septem-
ber, 2014 was Rs. 1,93,83,000/- which the petitioner asserts has been discharged
by utilizing Cenvat credit to the extent of Rs. 1,33,73,768/- and paying Rs.
60,09,232/- by cash. Even though they had discharged their service tax liability
fully, the staff at Mangaluru branch filed NIL half yearly returns in Form ST-3 for
the periods 1-4-2013 to 30-9-2013, 1-10-2013 to 31-3-2014 and 1-4-2014 to 30-9-
2014 in their anxiety to meet the deadline fixed for filing of the said returns.
However, no revised returns were filed within the stipulated time. The respond-
ent Nos. 2 to 5 therein have taken a stand that the availment and utilization of
Cenvat credit to discharge service tax liability is wrong as the same has not been
declared in ST-3 returns and therefore, demanded payment of alleged short paid
service tax of Rs. 1,33,73,768/- along with interest.
________________________________________________________________________
1 On appeal from 2020 (32) G.S.T.L. 45 (Kar.).
GST LAW TIMES  21st May 2020  85