TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 413
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....igence, Rajkot Regional Unit, Gujarat, as being without jurisdiction and arbitrary. 2. Petitioner submits that earlier investigation and inquiries against the petitioner had resulted in communication/letter dated 19th November, 2014. Petitioner had accepted short payment of service tax of Rs. 20,92,42,010/-, which was voluntarily deposited along with appropriate interest and penalty. Letter dated 19th November, 2014 records that case was concluded under Section 73(4A) of the Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, the respondent authorities cannot issue the aforesaid summons/notices. Respondent authorities were aware of the Global Settlement Agreement dated 18th April, 2014 between the petitioner and Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Limited. Dr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....April, 2014 relates to the period covered by Financial Years 2012-13 and 2013-14. 5. Be that as it may, the petitioner is entitled to raise all these contentions and issues in response to the summons/notices, which are in the form of letters calling upon the petitioner to give and file their response. The contentions raised by the petitioner would be examined and considered by the authorities, who have issued the notices. It will be pre mature to interfere and quash the notices or summons, in nature of queries raised. Issue of summons and notices does not mean that the authorities have formed any opinion or decided that show cause notice has to be issued. The queries raised have to be answered and depending upon the explanation given, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in ICICI Bank versus Union of India and Another, [2015] 82 VST 280 (Bom). 9. In the present case even show cause notice has not been issued, but queries and questions have been raised, to which answers given by the petitioner would be considered and examined. The general rule is that the Courts should abstain from interference at this stage except when a clear cut case of abuse of process of law is made out and prima facie established by the petitioner. This is not the position in the present case for contentious issues both on facts and legal interpretation of Sub-section (4) and (4A) of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1944 arise for consideration. Bypassing the normal and routine procedure would not be proper. We would not like to under....