2013 (2) TMI 38

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Rs. 2 crores, collected by the respondent Department, under coercion, during the search conducted by it at the branch office of the petitioner Company, located at 119, Amaravathy Second Street, Gurusamy Nagar, Bharathiar University Post, Coimbatore, on 1.3.2012.   2. It has been stated that the petitioner is registered with the Central Excise Service Tax Department, Kolkata, for the payment of Service Tax, relating to the works undertaken by it, within the jurisdiction of Kolkata Commissionerate, under chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994, read with the Service Tax Rules, 1994. As such, the petitioner has been paying the Service Tax due from it, regularly, without any default.   3. It has also been stated that the petitioner ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ervice Tax, due from the company. It is a well settled position in law that no tax can be collected from the assessee without a proper assessment order being passed, in accordance with the procedures established by law.   5. It has been further stated that the respondent has no jurisdiction to search the premises of the petitioner company, or of its Directors, as the petitioner is not carrying on its business within the jurisdiction of the respondent. Further, the petitioner has not been registered under the respondent department, at Coimbatore.   6. It has also been stated that there is no liability on the part of the petitioner to pay Service Tax. While so, the collection of a sum of Rs. 2 crores, by the respondent departm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....id of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.   8. In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and in view of the submissions made on behalf of the parties concerned, and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the collection of Rs. 2 crores by the respondent Department, from the petitioner company, during the search conducted, on 1.3.2012, cannot be held to be valid in the eye of law.   9. Even though it has been stated, on behalf of the respondents, that a sum of Rs. 2 crores had been collected from the petitioner company, volunatiry, in respect of its Service Tax liability, it has not been shown, by the respondent, that the pet....