2014 (10) TMI 484

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of providing tele-communication network. The petitioner is engaged in providing business auxiliary services and infrastructural facilities to various telecom companies. The petitioner is having a centralized service tax registration and is filing its returns regularly. One M/s. Chennai Network Infrastructure Limited, a company situate at Navi Mumbai, Dist. Thane is also in the same business. The petitioner and said M/s. Chennai Networks Infrastructure Limited ('M/s. CNIL' for short) agreed to merge their activities. It filed a scheme of merger before this Court and the Madras High Court. Learned Single Judge of this Court exercising company jurisdiction allowed the Company Scheme Petition No.295 of 2011 filed by the petitioner on 22....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ound that what the petitioner had filed was only a representation and not a refund application. All that the authorities had advised the petitioner is to file an appropriate and proper application for refund or credit of service tax paid and to the competent authority. Alternatively, it is admitted that the Commissioner of Service Tax-II, Mumbai had denied the request of the petitioner, yet, that should be construed as an order and it can be impugned by way of appropriate proceedings under the Act, namely, Central Excise Act, 1944 which applies the procedure even in relation to service tax refund claim as set out therein. 5. For all these reasons, Mr. Jetly submits that the present petition should be dismissed. 6. Mr.Chagla, learned c....