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 quashes service tax demand notice, transfers case for consistent orders. Petitioner's request granted for PC proceedings.</h1> The court quashed the show cause notice (SCN) for service tax demand and ordered the transfer of proceedings to the Principal Commissioner (PC) for ... Jurisdiction - power of authority to issue SCN - SCN is issued by the Deputy Director/Deputy Commissioner (DC) under the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence, Chandigarh Zonal Unit - imited prayer pressed at this stage by the Petitioner is that proceedings pursuant to the said SCN should continue before the Principal Commissioner (PC) who is seized of the adjudication of a similar SCN issued to an other automobile dealer. HELD THAT:- The Court sees merit in the contention of the Petitioner that if the subject matter of both SCNs is the same, viz., charging of service tax on discount and incentives received by the Petitioner from the car manufacturer, it would be in the interest of the Respondents themselves that consistent orders are passed in both the cases - the Court directs that further proceedings pursuant to the impugned SCN dated 7th October, 2019 be continued before the PC, Central Goods and Service Tax, Chandigarh. Petition disposed off. Issues:1. Quashing of show cause notice (SCN) for service tax demand.2. Transfer of proceedings to Principal Commissioner (PC) for consistent orders.Analysis:Issue 1: The petitioner filed a writ petition to quash a show cause notice (SCN) dated 7th October, 2019, raised by Respondent No.2 for service tax demand. The SCN was issued by the Deputy Director/Deputy Commissioner (DC) under the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence, Chandigarh Zonal Unit. The petitioner, a dealer of Hyundai, requested that proceedings pursuant to the SCN should continue before the Principal Commissioner (PC) who is handling a similar case against another automobile dealer in Chandigarh. The DC rejected this request citing that the tax payer in the present case is different from the one pending before the PC.Issue 2: The court acknowledged the petitioner's argument that if the subject matter of both SCNs is the same - charging of service tax on discounts and incentives from the car manufacturer - consistent orders should be passed in both cases. The court found merit in this contention and directed that further proceedings pursuant to the impugned SCN be continued before the PC, Central Goods and Service Tax, Chandigarh. The court emphasized the importance of consistent orders and instructed the petitioner's authorized representative to appear before the PC on the communicated date at least seven days in advance. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
