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>High Court Upholds Decision on Rectification Application, Emphasizes Scope of Section 74</h1> <h3>M/s. VKA Constructions Versus Union of India</h3> M/s. VKA Constructions Versus Union of India - TMI Issues:1. Rejection of application for rectification under Section 74 of the Finance Act, 1994.2. Consideration of the non-application of Rule 2A of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006.3. Applicability of the remedy of appeal under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act.Analysis:1. The petitioner challenged the rejection of their application for rectification under Section 74 of the Finance Act, 1994, concerning a demand for service tax. The High Court noted that while the petitioner may have a strong case on merits, the rejection of the rectification application does not necessarily imply an error in the original order. The Court emphasized the limited scope of Section 74 and directed the petitioner to file an appeal against the original order instead of seeking rectification.2. The Court discussed the significance of Rule 2A of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006, which the petitioner claimed was not considered when determining the tax amount. The judgment highlighted that the mere non-application of a relevant provision does not always constitute a mistake apparent on the face of the record. The Court advised the petitioner to address this issue in the appeal against the original order.3. Regarding the remedy of appeal under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, the Court clarified that the petitioner had two months from the date of receiving the rejection of the rectification application to file an appeal. As the rejection order was received on 04.03.2019, the petitioner had until 04.05.2019 to appeal against the original order dated 10.01.2019. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a regular appeal within the specified timeframe and directed the appellate authority to consider all objections, including the applicability of Rule 2A.In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to file a regular appeal against the original order within the prescribed period. The judgment emphasized the importance of following the appeal process and addressing all contentions, including the alleged non-application of relevant rules, during the appellate proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
