Orissa High Court
M/S. Crushaders Tech Solution Llp vs Superintendent Gst & Central …. … on 13 February, 2026
Author: Murahari Sri Raman
Bench: Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.4270 of 2026
M/s. Crushaders Tech Solution LLP, .... Petitioner
Khandagiri
Mr. Prakash Kumar Jena, Advocate
along with
Mr. Siba Prasad Dalai, Advocate
-versus-
Superintendent GST & Central .... Opposite Parties
Excise, Bhubaneswar II Division
and another
Mr. Bismay Ananda Prusty,
Senior Standing Counsel
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
ORDER
Order No. 13.02.2026
02. 1. The petitioner, demonstrating inaction of the Assistant
Commissioner, GST & Central Excise, Cuttack-I Division,
Cuttack for not issuing certified copy of the Order-in-Original
No.AC/GST & CX DVIN/ B-II/ST-616/2024, dated 30th
August, 2024, for which application was made on 16th
December, 2025 after receipt of letter dated 4th December, 2025
from the Bank of India, Sailashree Vihar Branch, Bhubaneswar
contemplating recovery of outstanding arrear demands and
assailing issuance of recovery notice dated 16th October, 2025
by the Assistant Commissioner GST & Central Excise,
Bhubaneswar-II Division, Bhubaneswar vide order dated 6th
October, 2025 for recovery of service tax demand, this writ
petition invoking provisions under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Page 1 of 7
Constitution of India has been filed with the following
prayer(s):
“Under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the
petitioner prays the Hon’ble Court to kindly consider the
aforementioned facts and be pleased to:
(I) admit the writ petition;
(II) issue Rule NISI calling upon the Opp. Parties to show
cause, and if they fail to show cause or show insufficient
cause, issue appropriate writ, direction and order
commanding the Opp Party No.2 to take immediate
necessary steps for issue of certified copy of the order
dt.30.08.2024 to enable the petitioner to file appeal;
(III) pass such other or further order (s) or such direction (s)
as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and appropriate in
the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends
of justice.
And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty
bound ever pray.”
2. The petitioner, M/s. Crushaders Tech Solution LLP, partnership
concern registered with the Registrar of Companies, Cuttack,
Odisha, is engaged as providing IT related software consultancy
services. The facts adumbrated in the writ petition leading to
question the propriety of raising demand are culled out and
given hereunder.
2.1. The petitioner during the Financial Years 2014-15, 2015-16 and
2016-17 having exported software services to the foreign
countries filed service tax return in ST-3 reflecting under
category of “export of service”, which attracts no service tax
Page 2 of 7
within the ambit of Section 66B of Chapter-V of the Finance
Act, 19941 (for short, “the Act”). Rule 6A of the Service Tax
Rules read with Section 65B(52) of the said Act makes it
abundantly clear that the transaction in question does not fall
within the scope of the Finance Act, 1994 at all. Therefore, the
petitioner did not include the amount received from export of
service to the clients in the service tax return in ST-3.
2.2. As it seems based on the income tax returns filed by the
petitioner for the years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17, the
Assistant Commissioner GST & Central Excise, Bhubaneswar-
II Division, Bhubaneswar-opposite party No.2 issued Show
Cause Notice dated 25th September, 2020 to the petitioner
contemplating adjudication under Section 73 of the Finance
Act, 1994. The petitioner responded to said Show Cause Notice
on 20th June, 2024.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the
Show Cause Notice dated 25th September, 2020 to proceed with
adjudication of tax liability under Section 73 with respect to
transactions effected during the Financial Years 2014-15, 2015-
16 and 2016-17 is beyond the statutory period of limitation
stipulated, i.e., 31st March, 2015, 31st March, 2016 and 31st
March, 2017 respectively. Nonetheless, an Adjudication Order
was purported to have been passed on 30th August, 2024.
1
Section 66B reads as under:
“Charge of Service Tax on services received from outside India.–
There shall be levied a tax (hereinafter referred to as the service tax) at the rate of twelve per
cent. on the value of all services, other than those services specified in the negative list,
provided or agreed to be provided in the taxable territory by one person to another and
collected in such manner as may be prescribed.”
Page 3 of 7
3.1. It is submitted that as per Section 37C of the Central Excise
Act, an Adjudication Order was required to be served on the
assessee, said Order was never served on him, which prevented
him from availing the remedy provided under the Finance Act,
1994. Nevertheless, the opposite party No.2 commenced
recovery proceeding under Section 87 of the Finance Act, 1994.
It is affirmatively submitted by the learned counsel that it is
from banker that a demand is outstanding in respect of service
tax pertaining to aforesaid Financial Years came to be known.
The petitioner having received such information, filed an
application on 16th December, 2025 and 30th December, 2025
before the competent officer seeking grant of certified copy of
the Adjudication Order so as to enable him to prefer an appeal.
Since there was no response from the opposite party No.2, and
no copy is supplied, finding no alternative the present case has
been instituted.
3.2. Seeking to place reliance on Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules,
19942 it is submitted that the transactions sought to be levied
with service tax falls outside the ken of the Finance Act, 1994.
2
Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 stood thus:
"6A. Export of Services.-
(1) The provision of any service provided or agreed to be provided shall be treated as
export of service when, -
(a) The provider of service is located in the taxable territory,
(b) The recipient of the service is located outside India,
(c) The service is not a service specified in the section 66D of the Act,
(d) The place of provision of the service is outside India,
(e) The payment for such services has been received by the provider of service in
convertible foreign exchange, and
(f) The provider of service and recipient of service are not merely
establishments of a distinct person in accordance with item (b) of
Explanation 3 of clause (44) of Section 65B of the Act.
(2) Where any service is exported, the Central Government may, by notification, grant
rebate of service tax or duty paid on input services or inputs, as the case may be, used
Page 4 of 7
3.3. It is alleged by the counsel for the petitioner that despite the
Adjudication Order being shown to have been passed on 30th
August, 2024, the same being not communicated to the assessee
and non-supply of certified copy of such Order within a
reasonable period, pre-supposes that such Order was never
passed within the period of stipulated under Section 73 of
Chapter-V of the Finance Act, 1994.
4. To meet such contentions of the learned counsel for the
petitioner Sri Bismaya Anand Prusty, learned Senior Standing
Counsel sought for an accommodation to obtain instruction on
earlier date of hearing. The learned Senior Standing Counsel
during course of hearing handed over the photocopy of the
Adjudication Order to the counsel for the petitioner and
submitted that the authority concerned communicated said
order to the petitioner through Speed Post which was returned
undelivered. However, he would urge that since the copy of the
Adjudication Order has been communicated today, the appeal
can be directed to be filed by the petitioner.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior
Standing Counsel and perused the record.
6. Appreciating the contentions of the counsel for the petitioner
that the transactions pertaining to the Financial Years in
question do not fall within the scope of Chapter-V of the
Finance Act, 1994 and the Adjudication Order could not have
in providing such service and the rebate shall be allowed subject to such safeguards,
conditions and limitations, as may be specified, by the Central Government, by
notification.”
Page 5 of 7
been made on the date purported to have been passed which
attracts vice of limitation, this Court is satisfied that such facts
are required to be adjudicated as a matter of fact on scrutiny of
records of the authority concerned and the Appellate Authority
is competent to return such finding of fact. The legal issues
raised by the petitioner are subject to determination by the
Appellate Authority on facts on analysis of evidence available
on record and to be adduced before him.
6.1. Since the petitioner has efficacious alternative remedy provided
under the Finance Act, 1994 to prefer an appeal, this Court,
without expressing opinion on the merits of the case, directs the
petitioner to file appeal within a period of fifteen days from
date. The copy of the Adjudication Order being supplied to the
counsel for the petitioner in course of hearing of the present
case, the Appellate Authority shall not raise issue of limitation
in case appeal is filed within the period mentioned hereinabove.
The petitioner shall file certified copy of the Adjudication
Order within seven days from the date of delivery of such copy
to him/authorized representative in consideration of application
for grant of certified copy before the Appellate Authority.
6.2. Subject to compliance of statutory requirement(s), other than
the limitation for filing appeal, the appeal shall be admitted and
decided on merits without being influenced by any of the
observations touching the merit of the matter hereinabove
discussed. Needless to observe that the Appellate Authority
concerned shall consider all such pleas to be raised by the
petitioner as available to him in law including the point of
Page 6 of 7
limitation qua the Adjudication Order. This Court hastens to
add the following guideline set forth by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Agricultural Produce Marketing
Committee Vrs. State of Karnataka, (2022) 4 SCR 309:
“Therefore, the courts should adjudicate on all the issues and
give its findings on all the issues and not to pronounce the
judgment only on one of the issues. As such it is the duty cast
upon the courts to adjudicate on all the issues and pronounce
the judgment on all the issues rather than adopting a shortcut
approach and pronouncing the judgment on only one issue. By
such a practice, it would increase the burden on the appellate
court and in many cases if the decision on the issue decided is
found to be erroneous and on other issues there is no
adjudication and no findings recorded by the court, the
appellate court will have no option but to remand the matter for
its fresh decision. Therefore, to avoid such an eventuality, the
courts have to adjudicate on all the issues raised in a case and
render findings and the judgment on all the issues involved.”
7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition
is disposed of along with pending Interlocutory Application(s),
if any.
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice
(M.S. Raman)
Judge
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
MRS/Laxmikant
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 17-Feb-2026 11:12:18
Page 7 of 7
