TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (12) TMI 955
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed to impugned order-in-original No. HYD-EXCUS-002-COM-08-21-22, dated 29.10.2021 passed by the respondent No. 3 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and quash the said impugned order." 2. Heard Mr. V. Yadu Krishna Sainath, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, Deputy Solicitor General of India and Mr. Swaroop Orilla, learned counsel for the respondents. Factual background: 3.1 The Telangana State Wakf Board, a statutory body for the administration/management of all waqf institutions and its properties across the State of Telangana. While so, basing on the receipts and payments account for the years 2014-15 to 2017-18 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and the Andhra Pradesh, which came into effect on 02.06.2014 and in the composite State the jurisdiction over the petitioner was with the Principal Commissioner, Visakhapatnam. Therefore for the probing period between April, 2014 and 02.06.2014 the respondent No. 3 will not have jurisdiction either for issuance of show cause notice or to conduct consequential proceedings. Further pleaded that the Hon'ble Apex Court in a recent judgment held that when a part of cause of action is without jurisdiction, the entire proceeding would fail. 4.2 Learned counsel further pleaded that Section 73(1) of the Act prescribes limitation of 18 months to serve notice for recovery of service tax and for the check period in the show cause notice, this period ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arned Senior Standing Counsel for the department Mr. Dominic Fernandes would submit that the respondent No. 3 had considered the objections of the petitioner and by an elaborate discussion and negated the contentions raised by the petitioner. Nonetheless as the order is appealable under Section 86(1) of the Act seeking remedy in writ petition is inapposite and this Court in similar circumstances and also where the aspect of limitation has been challenged, directed the petitioners to recourse of an appeal. However in regard to jurisdiction he submits that after the States reorganization, as the properties are within the territorial jurisdiction, initiation of proceedings by the respondent No. 3 is perfectly justified. It is evident by the ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... without jurisdiction has passed the impugned order and the cause is evidently barred by the period prescribed in Section 73(1) of the Act. Further claimed that the alleged services of the petitioner are exempted and even otherwise the respective wakf institutions or Mutawalli should have been held liable. 8. The relevant assessment years in the impugned proceedings are between 2014-15 to 2017-18. Indisputably, from April, 2014 to 02.06.2014 as the State was united the jurisdiction was with the Principal Commissioner, Visakhapatnam. The petitioner is not disputing that after 02.06.2014 the respondent No. 3 is having jurisdiction to conduct proceedings over the disputed issue. It is not the case of the petitioner that the properties referre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....material, would be the appeal. In addition, though the petitioner has asserted that a part of time barred cause of action would effect rest of the period has remained unsubstantiated with any legal position. 10. The discord regarding invocation of proviso of Section 73(1) of the Act for invocation of extended period of five years, the specific stand of the respondent is that there was willful misstatement, suppression of fact by the petitioner as such there is contravention of the provisions of the Act. These questions require deliberation in the set of factual matrix. In the impugned order the respondent No. 3 has arrived at certain conclusion and the proper jurisdiction to reconsider its property would be in appeal. 11. Above all, the p....