TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 7
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arth Khatana, Sr. Panel Counsel, Ms. Sonu Bhatanagar, Sr. Standing Counsel with Ms. Monica Benjamin and Ms. Nishta Mittal, Advs. for R-1,2,3,4 and 5 Mr. T.P. Singh, Sr. Central Govt. Counsel for UOI, Mr. Vivek Goyal, CGSPC with Mr. Gokul Sharma and Mr. Shivam Singh, Advs. for R-1/UOI, Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Ansari, Sr. Panel Counsel, Mr. Neeraj, SPC with Mr. Vedansh Anand and Mr. Sahaj Grag, Advs. for UOI/R-1 W.P.(C) 13325/2018, 2138/2019 and CM APPL. 19531/2023 (Directions), 2311/2019 and CM APPL. 37409/2021 (Early Hearing), CM APPL. 10762/2019 (Stay), 2479/2019 and CM APPL. 19590/2023 (Directions), 5928/2019 and CM APPL. 9162/2022 (For Vacation of Stay), CM APPL. 19587/2023 (Directions), 8161/2019 and CM APPL. 654/2022 (Early Heari....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....egoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely: - xxx xxx xxx (k) imposition, on persons liable to pay service tax, for the proper levy and collection of the tax, of duty of furnishing information, keeping records and the manner in which such records shall be verified;" 4. Undisputedly, by placing reliance on S.94(2)(k) read with S.94(1) of the Act, the power of conducting audit and inspection under Rule 5A(2) was sought to be revived vide the Service Tax (Third Amendment) Rules, 2014 dated 05.12.2014. However, it is pertinent to note that the power to conduct a special audit and the conditions precedent prescribed in S.72A of the Act remained untouched. 5. Anal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....estion in favour of the Department. 8. There however appears to be an apparent conflict between the decisions rendered in Travelite, Megacabs on the one hand and Aargus on the other. While Rule 5A(2) of the 1994 Rules had been explicitly struck down in the former decisions, Aargus in particular upheld the validity of that Rule and additionally held that it would stand saved by virtue of Section 174(2) of the CGST Act. Viannar, while not independently upholding the validity of Rule 5A had followed the principles enunciated in Aargus and reaffirmed its conclusions resting on Section 174(2). 9. It becomes pertinent to note that both Aargus as well as Viannar have proceeded on the assumption as if Rule 5A(2) still existed on the statute book ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is of the above, it was urged that this Court should await judgment being rendered by the Supreme Court. The said contention was vehemently opposed by the respondents who submitted that the interim order of the Supreme Court does not detract from the right of the Court to consider the questions that arise. This more so, according to the respondents, especially in light of the judgment in Aargus and which has upheld the validity of Rule 5A(2). According to the respondents, the position cannot be left in a limbo merely because an appeal is pending in the Supreme Court. The respondents have also referred to the interim orders operating in the present writ petitions since long and thus causing grave prejudice to the Department. 13. This Court ....