TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (8) TMI 296
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Respondents : Adv. Smt. Sheela Devi.I., SC, Adv. Sri. George Abraham, SC, Adv. Sri. Viju Abraham, SC, Adv. Sri. C. K. Karunakaran JUDGMENT The petitioner, a Private Limited Company, seeks to set aside Exts.P11, P12 and P13 notices issued by the 3rd respondent. A further order is sought to direct the 3rd respondent not to initiate any proceedings against the petitioner under the Finance Act,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f their defence. 3. The petitioner was preparing to respond to Ext.P8 show-cause notice. While so, the petitioner received Ext.P9 notice dated 11.03.2020 directing the petitioner to pay Rs.8,62,397/- along with interest. The petitioner filed Ext.P10 reply stating that recovery proceedings under Section 87 of the Finance Act, 1994 cannot be initiated without adjudication. However, in spite of subm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x to the tune of Rs.8,62,397/- during the period from October, 2016 to February, 2017. The Range Officer was directed to initiate action for recovery of the short payment with interest. The petitioner was required to make good the pay-deficit service tax. It is on the failure of the petitioner to make payment, that Exts.P11 to P13 notices were issued to the bankers of the petitioner. The Standing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rule 7(b) of Service Tax Rules, 1994, which they have not done. The petitioner has to blame itself for the mess it is in. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 8. Respondents 1 to 4, on an audit conducted by the internal audit team, has detected non-payment of service tax. According to the respondents, the dues from the respondents wer....