TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 970
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evelopment Ltd., a company for arranging the purchase of a large tract of land in Tamilnadu. The petitioner was authroised as partner of the firm to collect the monies from DLF to disburse the same to the land owners, the agents or RJK Investments itself. According to the petitioner, the respondent has held that the entire amount received by the petitioner, even though it was disbursed to third parties and the petitioner has acted as a mere conduit for payment of funds to the identified parties, is liable to service tax without considering any of the agreements or the bank account statements or other evidence produced by the petitioner. 3. The petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been foisted with a demand of over 36 crores where....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tself by deciding a jurisdictional fact wrongly. The question whether the jurisdictional fact has been rightly decided or not is a question that is open for examination by the High Coourt in an application for a writ of certiorari. If the High Court comes to the conclusion, as the learned single Judge has done in this case, that the Income Tax Officer had concluded at the jurisdiction by deciding a jurisdictional fact erroneously, then the assessee was entitled for the writ of certiorari prayed for by him. It is incomprehensible to think that a quasi-judicial authority like the Income Tax Officer can erroneously decide a jurisdictional fact and thereafter proceed to impose a levy on a citizen. In our opinion, the Appellate Bench is wholly w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....liminary objection raised before us, the question is the same, namely, whether the High Court ought in this case to have exercised jurisdiction and if it took jurisdiction whether any settled principle governing Article 226 would have been departed from. 8. The power and jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution has been the subject of exposition from this Court. That it is extraordinary and to be used sparingly goes without saying. In spite of the very wide terms in which this jurisdiction is conferred, the High Courts have rightly recognised certain limitations on this power. The jurisdiction is not appellate and it is obvious that it cannot be a substitute for the ordinary remedies at law. Nor is its exercis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Act. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. The authority, after taking note of the submissions of the petitioner, and taking into account the commission received, in para 25 of the order and after verifying the invoices, came to the conclusion that DLF is the customer and the invoices raised by the noticee also confirm that the noticee received commission from the nominees of DLF and thereafter, the authority has observed as follows:- "30. I find from the records of the case that though the noticee is registered with the Service Tax Department, deliberately failed to disclose the full facts and di not inform about the receipt of commission towards rendering real estate agent services to the Department nor discl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uppressed the facts with an intention to evade payment of service tax. In view of the fact that the noticee had not disclosed the facts to the department with the intent to evade payment of Service Tax, suppression clause is rightly invoked. Hence, the extended proviso is rightly invoked in the instant case and the demand of Rs. 36,59,82,194/= are confirmed under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. 31.As regards the impression of penalty, the noticee contended that since there is no question of payment of service tax, there is no question of demand of interest and imposition of penalty and since there is no suppression of value of taxable service from their end, penalty under Sec.78 cannot be imposed. As discussed in the p....