2015 (9) TMI 835

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., 75 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. It appears from the said show cause notice that the computation sheets thereof were prepared on 11th October, 2010. This show cause notice for the period 1st October, 2008 to 31st March, 2010. Mr. Mittal, learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner challenged this show cause notice on jurisdictional grounds. He submitted that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction whatsoever to issue the show cause notice, invoking the longer period of limitation. The period of limitation at the relevant point of time was one year. Invoking the ground of wilful suppression on the part of the petitioner the longer period of limitation of five years has been invoked. He submitted that on a mere look at the document....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....w cause notice is payable at a later stage of the construction process. The impugned show cause notice alleged that the assessee had continued to avail of benefits under the notifications specified in the show cause notice improperly. They had availed abatement of Rs. 268,78,48,460/-. The question of payment of service tax on the materials supplied to the service recipients is a relevant factor taken into account for the purpose of calculation of this abatement. Mr. Mittal submitted that the above issue was known to the department, while issuing the earlier three show cause notices on 2nd August, 2007, 25th June, 2008 and 17th September, 2009. It was negligence, if at all, on the part of the department in not issuing the impugned show caus....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....one can doubt the accepted principle that the department cannot act contrary to its own circular. The rule of estoppel prevents them from doing so. But as far as application of the above Supreme Court decision is concerned, Mr. Maity, learned advocate for the respondents submits that the issue covered by this impugned show cause notice is completely different from the earlier three show cause notices. It relates to a different heading of tax. He submitted that the writ petitioner had challenged all the earlier show cause notices by filing writ applications in this court, which are pending. The writ petitioner is a habitual defaulter in the payment of service tax. All these writ applications should be heard together. In my opinion, it is d....