Atul Bhaurao Khulge Vs. Union of India (Uoi) - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
.....act in article 3 of schedule-i of the bombay court fees act has to be construed, in view of the provisions of section 8 of the general clauses act, as reference to the provisions of section 34 of the 1996 act. so far as an appeal filed under section 37 of the 1996 act is concerned, perusal of section 37 shows that an appeal is provided to the appellate court against an order setting aside an arbitral award or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under section 34. thus, as the provisions of article 3 of schedule-i do not apply to an application or petition filed under section 34 of the 1996 act, they will also not apply to the memorandum of appeal filed to set aside or modify an award made by the arbitrator under the 1996 act. in other words nothing contained in article 3 of..........the respondents to take instructions. at today's hearing, on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel on instructions states that he has been informed that there is no record available in the office to show the service of notice on the petitioner.5. considering the above, in our opinion, the order suffers from violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play apart from violation of the provisions of the rules.6. in the light of the above, the impugned order dated 24th march 2008 is set aside. the matter is remanded back to the respondent no. 3 for issuing show cause notice to the petitioner and thereafter to pass appropriate order according to law.7. learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner on instructions states that the address of the petitioner is the address as.....

Judgment:
ORDER

1. P.C. Rule : Heard forthwith.

2. The petition is against the order dated 24th March 2008 whereby the petitioner was directed to determine the correct value of the taxable service and to discharge the amount of service tax along with the amount of interest at the appropriate rates provided under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 and the Rules framed thereunder, and to file prescribed periodical returns on the basis of the compliance.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that before this order was passed, no show cause notice was issued to him.

4. On the last occasion, the matter was adjourned in order to enable the respondents to take instructions. At today's hearing, on behalf of the respondents, learned Counsel on instructions states that he has been informed that there is no record available in the office to show the service of notice on the petitioner.

5. Considering the above, in our opinion, the order suffers from violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play apart from violation of the provisions of the Rules.

6. In the light of the above, the impugned order dated 24th March 2008 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the respondent No. 3 for issuing show cause notice to the petitioner and thereafter to pass appropriate order according to law.

7. Learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner on instructions states that the address of the petitioner is the address as shown in the petition. Statement is accepted.

8. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.