TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 577
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the respective petitioners challenged the respective orders of extension passed by the Chief Commissioner. 3.00. Facts leading to the present Special Civil Applications, in nutshell, are as under :- 3.01. That information was received by the Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Commissionerate indicating that M/s. Vintech Shoppe Pvt. Ltd., having its registered office at Surat is engaged in the business of franchisee concept business under the brand "hrp franchise" wherein they appointed frenchisee by charging amount and the said activity is taxable service, squarely covered under the category of "Franchise Service" and also not included in Negative List from 1/7/2012. It was also gathered that M/s. Vintech Shoppe Pvt. Ltd., Surat is a Private Limited Company having Chairman-cum-Managing Director Mr.Jignesh G. Panseria. Further, it was also gathered that M/s. Vintech Shoppe Pvt. Ltd., Surat is not registered with the Service Tax Department for providing taxable services under the category "Franchise Service" and accordingly, they have not paid any Service Tax to the Government Exchequer in respect of income earned from the franchisee business. 3.02. Accordingly, based o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....DBI Bank, Parvat Patia, Puna- Khambharia Road, Surat: B. Shri Jignesh Ghanshyambhai Paneseriya, Chairman & Managing Director, M/.s. Vintech Shoppe Private Limited, Surat. V/ST/15-06/0A/15- 16 dated 21.10.2015 Rs.31,79,00,794/- plus interest and penalty as applicable. 2 M/s. Vintech Infrastructure,421-422, Deepkamal Commercial Hub, Nr. Sarthana Zoon, Varachha Road, Surat. V/ST/15-07/0A/15- 16 dated 21.10.2015 Rs.1,58,41,969/- plus interest and penalty as applicable. 3 M/s. Ramdev Developers, 3rd Floor, Aalay Building, Above IDBI Bank, Parvat Patia, Puna- Khambhari Road, Surat. V/ST/15-08/0A/15- 16 dated 23.10.2015 Rs.71,04,930/- plus interest and penalty as applicable. Total Service Tax Demand 34,08,47,693/- plus interest and penalty as applicable. 3.08. The Commissioner was of the opinion that with a view to protect the interest of the government dues, properties of the noticee are required to be provisionally attached under section 73(C) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Service Tax (Provisional Attachment of Property) Rules, 2008, as it was apprehended that the respective noticee are likely to dispose of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ral justice. It is submitted that the impugned orders passed by the Chief Commissioner extending the period of provisional attachment is non-speaking orders and as such no reasons have been assigned while extending the period of provisional attachment. 5.02. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respective petitioners has further submitted that before passing the impugned orders of extension extending the period of provisional attachment, no opportunity of being heard has been given to the respective petitioners and therefore, the same are in breach of and/or in violation of the principles of natural justice. 5.03. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respective petitioners has further submitted that against the total payable demand raised against the partnership firm is of Rs. 1.51 Crores (rounded off), whereas the properties of the partners of the partnership firm and the partners attached under the impugned orders are worth more than Rs. 6 Crores and therefore, the provisional attachment of the properties worth more than Rs. 6 Crores is wholly impermissible. Making above submissions and relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the Chief Commissioner of extension of provisional attachment for a further period of one year, cannot be said to be illegal and/or in breach of principles of natural justice. 6.02. Now, so far as the contention on behalf of the respective petitioners that the orders passed by the Chief Commissioner extending the provisional attachment for a further period of one year are non-speaking orders, is concerned, it is vehemently submitted by Ms. Avni Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent department - revenue that considering the material on record and having satisfied that the period of provisional attachment is required to be further extended, the Chief Commissioner has passed the impugned orders, which cannot be said to be nonspeaking orders. Making above submissions it is requested to dismiss the present petitions. 7.00. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. 7.01. At the outset, it is required to be noted that Show Cause Notices have been issued against the respective petitioners demanding total sum of Rs. 34,08,47,693/- plus interest and penalty towards Service Tax, in exercise of powers under provis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Excise], by order in writing, attach provisionally any property belonging to the person on whom notice is served under sub-section (1) of section 73 or sub-section (3) of section 73A, as the case may be, in such manner as may be prescribed. (2) Every such provisional attachment shall cease to have effect after the expiry of a period of six months from the date of the order made under sub-section-section (1); Provided that the [Principal Commissioner of Central Excise and Chief Commissioner of Central Excise] may for the reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the aforesaid period by such further period or periods as he thinks fit, so, however, that the total period of extension shall not in any case exceed two years]." 7.03. Therefore, whenever the Legislature intended to afford hearing / personal hearing, the same has been provided like section 73(C)(1) of the Act. Under the circumstances, on the ground that before passing the impugned orders of extension of provisional attachment by the Chief Commissioner, no opportunity of being heard were given to the respective petitioners, and therefore, the impugned orders of extension of provisional attachment are no....