2017 (5) TMI 997

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner- Company is engaged in providing software service business. It is registered at the local VAT office. The audit of the petitioner-Company was taken up on 30.9.2013. According to the petitioner, the audit proceedings commenced on 6.5.2015, and continued till 7.5.2015. During this proceeding, certain discrepancies were noticed by the respondent. Therefore, on 17.5.2015, a proposition notice was issued to the petitioner. According to the respondent, the petitioner-Company had received a consideration of Rs. 12,50,000/- as trans action related to software service to M/s. Shell MRPL Aviation and Fuel Services Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru. However, the s aid amount was not declared as local tra....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....counsel was heard on 20.1.2017, but behind the back of the petitioner's counsel, and the petitioner, on 2.2.2017, the learned Commissioner heard the arguments of the respondents. However, on 2.2.2017, neither the petitioner, nor his counsel w ere present. Therefore, the arguments of the respondents were heard behind the back of the petitioner, and the impugned order was passed thereafter. Therefore, the petitioner did not have a chance to rebut the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respondents. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the impugned order deserves to be set aside by this Court. 7. Mr. T. K. Vedamurthy, the learned counsel for the Revenue, has pleaded that no new facts have been mentioned by the learned couns....