2024 (3) TMI 288

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....4845 of 2021 - -<br>Service Tax<br>Honourable Mr. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy For the Petitioner : Mr.T.R.Ramesh For the Respondents : Mr.K.Mohanamurali Senior Standing Counsel ORDER The petitioner challenges an order dated 29.02.2020 in respect of the application filed by the petitioner under the Sabka Vishwas Legacy Disputes Resolution Scheme-3 (SVLDRS-3). 2. The petitioner was an asse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....06.2019. The present writ petition was filed in the above facts and circumstances. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to paragraph 9 of the order-in-original dated 09.07.2019, and pointed out that it is recorded therein that the hearing was not concluded until after a month beyond 31.05.2019. If the said one month is taken into consideration, learned counsel submits that t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai (Vamsee Overseas), 2021 (47) G.S.T.L. 463 (Mad.), particularly paragraph 8 thereof. 4. Mr.Mohanamurali, learned senior standing counsel, appears on behalf of the respondents. As regards the contention that the petitioner&#39;s case falls within the category &#39;litigation&#39;, he points out that the final hearing took place on 31.05.2019. Sinc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er points out that the adjudicating authority waited for one month thereafter, the fact that the adjudicating authority waited for one month before issuing orders does not mean that the final hearing took place after 30.06.2019. Hence, the conclusion that the petitioner&#39;s case falls within the category "arrears" and not within the category "litigation" contains no infirmity. 6. The other aspe....