TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Petitioner advised to clarify summons with issuing authority, no coercive measures until resolved.</h1> <h3>M/s. Siri Restaurant & Bar Versus The Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax</h3> M/s. Siri Restaurant & Bar Versus The Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax - 2016 (41) S.T.R. 177 (A. P.) Issues involved:The judgment involves the issue of imposing service tax on the petitioner for providing Air Conditioning facility to customers based on summons issued under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.Writ Petition No. 29905 of 2013:The petitioner sought relief through a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of proposing service tax as illegal, arbitrary, and without power. The summons dated 17.9.2013 under Section 14 of the Act was the only material presented to support the imposition of service tax. The petitioner argued based on a judgment of the Kerala High Court that the provision enabling the imposition of service tax had been struck down. However, upon examining the summons, it was found that it did not clearly indicate the intention to impose service tax. The summons was issued to inquire into alleged evasion without specifying the target of the proceedings. The court advised the petitioner to approach the issuing authority to understand the real intention behind the summons and present the Kerala High Court judgment for consideration. No coercive measures were to be taken by the authorities until this process was completed. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.Writ Petition Nos. 30005 and 30009 of 2013:These writ petitions were disposed of based on the judgment in Writ Petition No. 29905 of 2013 since the issues on fact and law were identical. The court did not provide a separate judgment for these petitions and followed the decision made in Writ Petition No. 29905 of 2013. Consequently, any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of in line with the judgment of Writ Petition No. 29905 of 2013.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
