1. Heard Sri A.V.A. Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel appears for petitioner and Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) appears for respondents Nos.2 to 4.

2. The impugned Order-In-Original (for short ‘OIO’) dated 29.08.2023 imposed tax liability of Rs.17,24,965/- for the period 2016-17. The petitioner assailed the same in the present Writ Petition filed on 02.12.2024 on the ground that no show cause notice was served upon it, thereby, denying the principles of natural justice and the procedure laid down under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, read with Section 174(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

3. Apart from that, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to paras 15 and 16 of OIO, in para 16 of which, it has been recorded that the petitioner tax payer had made written submissions. In the preceding paragraph, the learned Assessing Officer categorically recorded that the assessee has no inclination to file their reply despite sufficient time being provided and also to attend the personal hearing. It shows complete non-application of mind. The learned Assessing Officer has thereafter proceeded to adjudge the liability as aforesaid besides imposing penalty of the equivalent amount under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, and also Section 77 thereof. He has also imposed late fee for non-filing of ST3 returns for the above said period.

4. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 have enclosed to their counter-affidavit the documents containing details of despatch of show cause notice through Speed Post. They have also annexed the copies of envelopes showing despatch of personal hearing notices upon the petitioner and the acknowledgment made by the petitioner on 05.08.2023 through email seeking further time till 31.08.2023 to appear and clarify all the issues. On behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4, it is contended that the plea of non-service of show cause notice is an afterthought, since in the acknowledgment or reply to the notice of personal hearing through email, the petitioner never raised the issue of non-service of show cause notice. Despite service of personal hearing notice, the petitioner failed to participate in the proceedings and contest the charges.

5. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 has sought to clarify the statement made at para 16 of the OIO that the said statement was an inadvertent error as the remaining body of the OIO does not reflect any submission of reply or written submission by the petitioner which has been referred to before confirming the demand. It is submitted that the impugned proceedings are also belated and hit by the ratio rendered in the case of Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited  ((2020) 19 SCC 681). 6. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

7. In the light of the documents annexed to the counter-affidavit and additional counter-affidavit, it is evident that the respondent department has despatched the show cause notice through Speed Post on 21.10.2021. Had the petitioner not received the show cause notice, the email sent in acknowledgment to the personal hearing notice ought to have raised the issue of non-service of show cause notice. Despite receipt of personal hearing notice, the petitioner did not file any reply and has raised this plea as an afterthought after the OIO was passed. The decision rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.02.2023 passed in Writ Petition No.4357 of 2023 shows that not only the service of show cause notice was not recorded in the OIO but also none of the three personal hearing letters issued to the petitioner were served upon them at the last known address as those were returned undelivered. In those circumstances, the learned Court concluded that the notice was not served upon the petitioner therein thereby causing violation of principles of natural justice.

8. In the present case, the facts are distinct. On the one hand, as observed above, the department shows despatch of show cause notice through Speed Post. On the other, the petitioner despite receipt of personal hearing notice does not raise that plea nor participates in the proceedings by furnishing any reply or written statement. As such, this plea is not tenable in facts or in law. The statement made at para 16 of the impugned OIO would not improve the case of the petitioner as the entire discussion thereafter made by the Assessing Officer does not make any mention of the stand of the petitioner if any conveyed through his written submission. For that inadvertent error alone, the impugned order should not be quashed.

9. In the totality of facts and circumstances and the reasons recorded hereinabove, we are not inclined to interfere in the order impugned on alleged ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the instant Writ Petition is dismissed. 10. At the end, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be given liberty to prefer an appeal as is permissible in law. We do not feel that any liberty is required for the petitioner to prefer an appeal. It is open for the petitioner to seek such remedy if available in law. We have not commented on the merits of the case of the parties. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.