TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 439
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....malls under the license from Chhattisgarh State Excise department. Department's case is that the services provided by the government or a local authority by way of granting permission/licenses have been subjected to Service Tax under reverse charge w.e.f. 01.04.2016 by virtue of notification No. 18/2016-ST dated 01.03.2016. Department received an intelligence that the appellant is engaged in evasion of service tax by not paying the same on license amount paid by him to Chhattisgarh State Excise department for obtaining license for conducting the aforesaid business of retail sale liquor in malls. An investigation was conducted vide show-cause notice No. 4900 dated 15.05.2017. Service Tax amount of Rs. 26,70,281/- for the period May, 2016 to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssing upon the merits of the case, it is submitted that the licensee fee paid to the Chhattisgarh State Government is not taxable as a retrospective exemption has been given by the government on the same in Finance Act (2) of 2019 dated 01.08.2019. Circular No. 354/136/2019 dated 11.10.2019 as issued by the government is also impressed upon submitting that it clarifies for no service tax on ground of liquor license by the state government against consideration in the form of licensee fee or application fee by whatever name called during the period from 01.04.2016 to 30.06.2017. Finally, impressing upon that the appellant otherwise has a good case to succeed, his grievance cannot be set aside at a threshold on the ground of it being barred....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y days from the date of the communication to him of such decision or order : Provided that the Commissioner (Appeals) may, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of sixty days, allow it to be presented within a further period of thirty days. (1A) The Commissioner (Appeals) may, if sufficient cause is shown at any stage of hearing of an appeal, grant time, from time to time, to the parties or any of them and adjourn the hearing of the appeal for reasons to be recorded in writing: Provided that no such adjournment shall be granted more than three times to a party during hearing of the appeal. (2) Every appeal under this Section shall be in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellant for receiving the show-cause notice and no apparent demand for seeking an opportunity to reply. The initial adjudicating proceedings were also in his notice and even his employee appeared on 04.10.2017. Apparently and admittedly there is no effort on part of the appellant to enquire the status of his proceedings till he received the e-mail dated 27.07.2018. From the order-in-appeal para-3 thereof, it is rather observed that the appellant while filing an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) had also filed an application praying for condonation of delay of 24 days on the ground that the said order was received over e-mail on 27.07.2018 by Shri Sadanand Singh, Manager of the appellant who underlined part from para 3 of 01 A. The said ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s was mentioned in application praying of condonation leading to non of diligence to pursue his matter. We are of the opinion that it rather amounts to acceptance of the order-in-appeal. In the given circumstances the date of communication cannot be extended to the date of receipt of e-mail. General Clauses Act about issue and notices and presumption for those to be received within 15 days of dispatch has to be accepted. Finally, in view of entire above discussion, I hold that the appellant herein has committed an intentional delay despite that the pendency of proceedings and even the order-in-original was in his notice. The date of information about recovery proceedings is also missing in the appellant's submission. The reasons quoted by....