TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 376
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Notice was issued to the petitioner by the Commissioner of Service Tax on 21.12.2006 and proceedings were initiated for non-payment of tax for the period February 2004 to March 2006. After considering the submissions of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Sales Tax took note of the legislative changes brought about by amendment with effect from 10.09.2004 to the Finance Act, 1994 and determined the demand at Rs. 1,56,48,080.91/- together with interest and appropriated a sum of Rs. 1,24,65,694.27/- which had been deposited during the pendency of the proceedings. 3. The order-in-original dated 25.09.2007 was sought to be enforced by the Commissioner through letter dated 25.09.2012, requiring the petitioner to deposit Rs. 31,82,386.64/-. Claiming to be aggrieved, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) 8089/2012 before this Court. This was, however, permitted to be withdrawn on 08.12.2012 and the petitioner was granted liberty to appeal against the order-in-original. Accordingly, it preferred an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ("CESTAT"). This was, however, dismissed by CESTAT on the ground of inordinate delay (of 1916 days), which the tribunal refused to co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ervice tax department on 08.03.2011. This could have been verified and the proceedings for recovering the outstanding demand of Rs. 31,83,356/-, dropped. The petitioner also relies upon a certificate of MUL dated 25.09.2012. During the hearing, learned counsel also relied upon the certificate of 15.02.2017 issued by the Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. which claims that as against the total amount received by MSIL from finance companies as commission upto 09.09.2004, (as against the total amount as commission of Rs. 1,44,37,72,022.84/-), the service tax paid was Rs. 11,55,01,761.83/-. The latter further states that MSIL shared the commission with its various dealers, including the petitioner. The counsel relies upon the following extract of the letter: "Certificate Date:- 15.2.2017 To M/s. Competent Automobiles Co. Ltd., Competent House, F-14, Connaught Place, New Delhi 110 001 1. XXXXXX XXXXXX &n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te refusal of the respondents/service tax department to look into the matter for examining whether in fact service tax was paid in order to avoid double tax for the same transaction, is utterly arbitrary and that for these reasons, the demand has to be quashed. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents contend that the present proceeding by way of petition under Article 226 is gross abuse of the process of Court. Highlighting that the petitioner's previous two writ petitions were not entertained, firstly on account of availability of alternative remedy and the second one due to the dismissal of its appeal, it is argued that the devious manner of seeking relief that is forbidden by law, adopted in this case, is to style a representation as a rectification of a final order. The petitioner had availed of all possible opportunities to contend that it had complied with, either on its own account or either by the adjustment of payments made by MSIL or Maruti Finance, towards the service tax liability for the relevant period, in both the original Show Cause Notice proceedings as well as in compliance with the demands made. Having failed in its endeavors, it approached this Court, which rele....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing no satisfactory explanation for condoning the delay. The fact of the matter is that the adjudication order was passed on 27.09.2007. The normal period during which the appeal could have been filed was three months. The appeal was actually filed on 03.04.2013 which ipso facto is hopelessly barred by limitation. The Tribunal has examined the matter and has come to the conclusion that there is no satisfactory cause shown by the petitioner for condoning the delay. We do not see any reason to interfere with the conclusion of the Tribunal in this matter. It must be noted that we are examining a writ petition and not an appeal. Consequently, we do not even have to examine as to whether the order passed by the Tribunal is right or wrong but as to whether it is legal or illegal. We do not find any illegality in the impugned order. The writ petition is dismissed." 11. In the above circumstances, for the first time, the petitioner asserted in reply to the demand made pursuant to the outstanding amounts payable that MUL had already deposited the relevant amount. In alleged proof of this assertion, a certificate, dated 27.05.2009 by MSIL was relied upon. This certificate was sought to be ....