TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 421
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Smt. Akshaya H.M., Advocate) Respondents (By Sri. K.M. Shivayogiswamy, Advocate for R-1 to R-4) O R D E R The petitioner has challenged the garnishee order dated 29.03.2016 issued by respondent No.1 to the respondent No.5 as well as the notice of recovery/garnishee order 22.5.2018 issued by respondent No.1 to respondent No.6 at Annexures-'M' and 'Z' respectively to the writ petiti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he observations of the audit officers relating to the difference of Rs. 38,66,902/- between the total tax payable and the actual amount of tax paid was considered as short payment of service tax and is figured in Sl.No./para 2 of the objections raised by the audit wing. 4. The petitioner had explained that there is no such short payment of service tax as pointed out by the Audit Wing and that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e tax of Rs. 38,66,902/- by issuing garnishee orders to the bankers. Hence, this writ petition. 5. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. Shivadass, appearing the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition as narrated above, would submit that the garnishee orders impugned are wholly unjustifiable and issued without authority of law. 6. Learned counsel Sri.K.M.Shivayogiswamy for the respo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bjections raised by the Audit Wing, objection No.6 regarding penalty for ST-3 was admitted and the other objections were contested by the petitioner providing detailed explanation. The discrepancy pointed out by the Audit Wing under para.2 regarding the short payment of service tax amounting to Rs. 38,66,902/- was explained by the petitioner that the same was correctly declared in page.11 of the s....