2018 (1) TMI 920

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... upheld the order of the Commissioner of Service Tax (CST) dated 8th January, 2008, which has also been challenged in this writ petition. 2. Notice in the petition was issued on 23rd November, 2015. In reply to the petition, a very short counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Department, which is exactly five paragraphs. Paragraph 5 simply states that "the Petitioner has filed Writ Petition directly against the order CESTAT." There is no objection, as such, raised as to the maintainability of the petition. 3. Mr. Anil Kathuria, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for AAI, pointed out that although AAI has an alternative statutory remedy of appeal, given the background of the case and the obvious errors in the impugned....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oned order dated 8th January, 2008, AAI filed an appeal before the CESTAT which came to be disposed of by the impugned order dated 28th August, 2014. 9. There were two main grounds on which the rectification was sought by AAI. One concerned the rent charged by AAI for its space in the Scope Complex. It was pointed out that AAI had office space on the 4th and 5th floors of the Scope Complex. It had already deposited service tax on gross amount of 'non-traffic revenue' including the rent received by it for the above space. The grievance was that the adjudication order did not take into account the fact that AAI had discharged all its liabilities towards non-traffic revenue including the rent on Scope Complex which was in terms of the Finance....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Mr Kathuria, learned counsel for the Petitioner on the other hand pointed out that it was incumbent on the CST to examine the entire assessment record of the Petitioner. In this context, he relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Shree Manjunatheswara Packing Products (1998) 251 ITR 53 (SC) and the decision of the Madras High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. M.R.M. Plantation (P) Ltd. [1999] 240 ITR 660 (Mad) in which it was explained that where an authority is to examine an application seeking rectification of a mistake, the entire record would have to be examined. 13. In the present case, the fact that the Petitioner had filed revised return on 26th June, 2006 is not disputed, particularly since the copies thereof ....