2017 (7) TMI 852

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n either side, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. 3. The petitioner has challenged the Order-in-Original dated 18.02.2016, by which, the first respondent has demanded payment of Rs. 8,56,920/-, being the Service Tax payable on 'Renting of Immovable Property Service', for the period from April 2009 to September 2011; for payment of interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act; penalty of an equivalent amount as Service Tax; and Penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. 4. Under normal circumstances, this Court would not entertain a writ petition against the impugned order, as there is an effective alternative remedy of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). However, the Court, which heard the matter on 17.03.2017 was prima fa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... tax up to the period which the lessee had paid him the service tax along with monthly rent and the balance amount was not paid by the petitioner because M/s.Bharat Scans stopped paying service tax by referring to a decision of the Delhi High Court. The petitioner further stated that since the Department has advised him to pay service tax with interest, he assured that all dues would be paid shortly and will report compliance. 9. Accordingly, the petitioner informed the third respondent vide letter dated 25.10.2012 that he has paid the service tax dues till date and a statement was enclosed showing that total service tax paid by him for the period from September 2008 to March 2009 was Rs. 12,54,995/-. In spite of having submitted such le....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rst respondent, but by the second respondent. It is unfortunate that Service Tax Commissionerate is unable to reconcile its own accounts and without any reservation, has filed a counter stating that the amounts paid by the petitioner do not match with the demand raised by the Department in the Show Cause Notice. As mentioned earlier, the first respondent, at an earlier point of time had not acknowledged the payments made by the petitioner and for the first time in the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, the payments have been referred to. It is not known as to why the first respondent has not referred to the payments made by the petitioner in the impugned order and this appears to be for reasons best known to him. If the Depar....