TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 68
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al, while questioning also the confirmation of duty, interest and penalty proposed in the second show-cause notice against differential amount on Income Tax Statement and Service Tax Return. 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, is that Appellant has been providing stock broking and trading facilities to its customers through online trading platform and when customers did not pay the amount against purchase of securities within the time frame of trading plus one day, Appellant makes the payment on its behalf and collects delayed payment interest from its customers. Holding the same amount as consideration received for a declared service under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994 for agreeing to tolerate the act of its customers for not d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case of IIFL Holding Ltd. Vs. CGST, Mumbai Central, 2014 (36) STR 937 (Tri.- Del.) in the case of Religare Securities Limited Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi, but apart from going into the merit of the case wherein extended period of limitation can also be challenged in view of service of show-cause notice for the earlier period, legality of this subsequent show-cause notice is questionable since the same is issued in gross violation of the right against double jeopardy and the same right is affirmed consistently by various judicial forums including this Tribunal, Hon'ble High Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Court. He placed his reliance on the following decisions to support his stand. They are Commissioner of Central Excise, Meer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n that was completed prior to the subsequent adjudication and its effect on the parties. What we intent to place on record is that the issue of legality of service of second show-cause notice before the first one got adjudicated has been settled way back in 2007 by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Osaka Alloys and Steels Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2007 (211) ELT 543 (P & H) and the same has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as could be noticed from its reported decision in 2008 (221) E.L.T.A150 (S.C.) (10.09.2007). The relevant portion of the order reads: "Delay condoned. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed on facts." The Punjab & Haryana High Court in its impugned judgment-in-question had held....