TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (5) TMI 1021
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o them, is part of the statutory obligation, being done in public interest. It is contended that the petitioner is not carrying out any instance of trade and that the activity does not come within the purview of the Service Tax net. It is without any regard to the factual position as above and in total disregard to the contents of Circular No.89/7/2006- ST dated 18.12.2006 (which stipulates that statutory functions do not fall within the purview of service tax net), that the petitioner has been required to satisfy the liability by way of Ext.P3 and P4 and hence the challenge. 3. It is seen from the pleadings and proceedings that the petitioner was served with Ext.P1 show-cause notice dated 20.09.2011 issued by the 1st respondent, with regard to the proposed fixation of liability asking the petitioner to submit explanation, if any, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice. On receipt of Ext.P1 notice, detailed explanation was submitted by way of Ext.P2 dated 10.10.2011, which was served to the 1st respondent on 19.10.2011. However, the 1st respondent turned down the claim of the petitioner and passed Ext.P3 order dated 24.05.2012, the operative portion of which reads....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lful suppression of the value of taxable services and material facts from the Department with an intent to evade payment of service Tax, Education cess and Secondary and Higher Education Cess. However I give the notice an option to avail the facility under proviso (1) and (2) of Section 78 of the Finance 1994. viii) with the above orders, Show Cause Notice No.125/2011/ST dated 20.09.2011 stands disposed off." 4. Subsequently, it was noted that, some error, as apparent on the face of the record, had occurred in fixing the liability vide Ext.P3. In the said circumstance, the matter was re-examined, invoking the power and procedure under Section 74(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, leading to Ext.P4 order dated 23.08.2012, enhancing the liability also by including 'interest' payable under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 in respect of the amount confirmed at serial No.(ii), (iii) and (iv) of Ext.P3 order. The said order was passed after serving notice dated 25.06.2012 and it has become final, as no appeal was preferred by the petitioner against Ext.P3 and P4 orders invoking the power and procedure under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 within the prescribed time. The wr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the legal position made clear already, also with reference to the decision rendered by the Apex Court on the point. 8. It is seen from the materials on record, that the petitioner is a registered service provider under the category of "Renting of Immovable Property Service" from 03.11.2008, under the second respondent. As a matter of fact, Service Tax was imposed on renting of immovable property services with effect from 01.06.2007 vide Notification No.23/2007 ST dated 22.5.2007 as per Section 65 (105) (zzzz) of the Finance Act,1994. Taxable services means, any service provided or to be provided to a person by any other person, in relation to renting of immovable property for use in the course of furtherance of business or commerce. There is no dispute for the petitioner that the petitioner had applied for and obtained Service Tax registration under the category 'Renting of immovable property service' on 03.11.2008 and started payment of Service Tax by filing ST-3 return from November 2008. In other words, there is no case that the petitioner has paid any Service Tax on the taxable income received during the period from June 2007 to October 2008. It was pointing out this....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of India [2010 (257) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), the appellate authority is having no power to allow the appeal presented beyond the stipulated time and as such, it is not liable to be resurrected by way of a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. Coming to the scope of the observations made by a Division Bench of this Court in Paragraph 23 and 24 of the verdict reported in M/s.Panopharam v. Union of India [ILR 2010 (2) Kerala 909], it is to be noted that nothing new or anything contrary to the law already declared by this Court, is brought about. After making a reference to the various judgments rendered by the Apex Court and also by this Court, it has been asserted by the Bench in paragraph 18, that in the case of a person whose remedy provided under the Statute stands expired, invoking of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India would amount to resurrection of a cause of action. The view of the Bench is clearly discernible from the observations in paragraph 19 which is extracted below : "We may even say that even if writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at a time when an appellate....