TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 1078
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3280/2016 (stay) 3. Notice. Mr. Jasmeet Singh, Advocate accpets notice on behalf of Respondent No.1 Union of India and Ms Pooja Bhaskar, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of Respondent No.2, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence ('DGCEI'). 4. This is a writ petition by EBIZ.Com. Private Limited seeking a declaration that the search conducted by the DGCEI, Respondent No.2, on the business premises of the Petitioner on 19th January 2016 apprehending evasion of payment of service tax by the Petitioner, as well as the summons issued to the Petitioner on 19th & 21st January 2016 by the DGCEI to be illegal and ultra vires to the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. 5. It is stated by Mr J.K. Mittal, learned counsel appearing for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ounts of the Petitioner's accounts have been periodically audited by the Commissioner of Service Tax (CST) since 2009. Further, the premises of the Petitioner was searched on two earlier occasions. He states that the Petitioner has been filing the service tax returns on a regular basis availing the exemption under the aforementioned notification by claiming to be a tour operator. The Petitioner was issued a notice under Section 73 (1) of the Finance Act 1994 on 17th November 2014 by the CST demanding a service tax of Rs. 34,00,425 which demand was confirmed by an order dated 21st December, 2015. This order is being challenged by the Petitioner. Another show cause notice dated 2nd November, 2015 demanding a service tax of Rs. 5,33,541 is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rding the Assessee having collected service tax but failing to pay to the Department as envisaged in Section 89 (1) (d) thereof. The question that would arise is whether there can be a pre-determination regarding the offence under Section 89 (1) (d) of the Finance Act 1994 without issuance of a notice under Section 73 (1) regarding the alleged evasion of payment of service tax in the sum of Rs. 17 crores, followed by an adjudication. 9. In the circumstances, the Court is satisfied that the Petitioner has made out a prima facie case and accordingly an interim direction is hereby issued restraining the DGCEI from taking any further coercive action against the Petitioner or any of its officers or employees till the next date of hearing. 10. ....