2025 (3) TMI 334

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner - Tata Teleservices Limited under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the impugned Order in Original dated 16th October, 2024 (hereinafter 'OIO'). on the ground of double taxation. It is the Petitioner's case that the same service provided by the Petitioner is sought to be doubly taxed. 3. The Petitioner is a service provider, which provides cellular mobile services, short message service ("SMS"), data/internet services and Value-Added Services ("VAS"). The Show Cause Notice proceedings revolve around prepaid vouchers/packages that the Petitioner provides for availing the above said services. 4. The case ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sses) amounting to Rs. 31,08,87,031 /- (Rupees Thirty-One Crore Eight Lakh Eighty-Seven Thousand and Thirty-One Only) for the period 01.04.2015 to 30.06.2017 under proviso to Section 73 (1) read with clause 3 to Section 73A of the Finance Act 1994 by invoking the extended period of limitation. (ii) I, hereby confirm the demand of interest on the amount of Service Tax confirmed (serial no. (i) above), for the period from the date on which the Noticee was required to pay Service Tax till actual date of payment, at the applicable rates in terms of Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. (iii) I, hereby, refrain to impose any penalty upon the Noticee under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. (iv) I hereby, impose penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ioner, does not exist in this case. 9. Mr. Khatri, ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Department, however, submits that the statement of the Petitioner's official who was heard by the Department shows that he admits that only on the first occasion service taxes were paid and not on the second occasion. 10. He further submits that the impugned order is appealable and relies two judgments in this regard i.e., Union Of India Vs. T.R. Varma, 1957 AIR 882 and Varimadugu Obi Reddy Vs. B. Sreenivasulu And Ors. [2022] 16 S.C.R. 1108. 11. The Court has considered the matter. Clearly, the question as to whether service tax would be liable to be paid on the second occasion when the consumers avail the ValueAdded Services or similar services on ....