TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Court rules in favor of petitioner in service tax dispute, grants liberty to pursue appellate remedies.</h1> The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, acknowledging their arguments regarding the impugned notices demanding service tax. Despite the Revenue's ... Composite notice - Best judgment method - Held that:- composite nature of the show cause notices issued and impugned in these cases cannot be construed as ousting or depriving the petitioners right to appeal given that Section 73 which empowers the authorities to invoke the extended period of limitation has been expressly invoked. We are also of the opinion that the other questions pertaining to legality and jurisdiction as well as from their levying of the service tax given the nature of the petitioners activity can be suitably agitated before the adjudicating authority. - Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi shall pronounce upon and decide all objections taken by the petitioner and replies to the show cause notices and deal with them expressly. In case of any adverse order, the petitioner is at liberty to avail the appellate remedies under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994. - Petition disposed of. Issues:1. Impugned notices demanding service tax under Sections 72 and 73 of the Finance Act, 1994.2. Petitioner's contention of being beyond the purview of service tax incidence.3. Deprivation of the right to appeal due to authorities adopting the best judgment route under Section 72.Analysis:1. The petitioner challenged the impugned notices dated 18-10-2012 and 24-10-2011, contending that they were untenable as they demanded service tax under Sections 72 and 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Court acknowledged the grounds raised by the petitioner, emphasizing two significant points. Firstly, the petitioner argued that they were outside the scope of service tax incidence based on the definition of club and association services introduced in 2005. Secondly, the petitioner claimed that by resorting to best judgment under Section 72, they were effectively stripped of the right to appeal.2. The Court carefully examined the submissions made by both parties, noting the Revenue's reliance on a previous order in National Building Construction Corporation v. Commissioner of Service Tax. Despite the composite nature of the show cause notices, the Court ruled that they did not preclude the petitioner from exercising their right to appeal. This decision was supported by the invocation of Section 73, allowing authorities to utilize an extended period of limitation. The Court also highlighted that issues related to legality, jurisdiction, and the applicability of service tax to the petitioner's activities could be raised before the adjudicating authority.3. In light of the above considerations, the Court directed the Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi, to address all objections raised by the petitioner and respond to the show cause notices explicitly. The petitioner was granted the liberty to pursue appellate remedies under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994 in case of an adverse order. Consequently, the writ petitions were disposed of based on the observations and directions provided by the Court, ensuring that the petitioner's concerns were addressed through the appropriate legal channels.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
