TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 651
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in Annexure-P-2) issued by the Respondent No.- 4 for Service tax amounting to Rs.13,07,700 (Thirteen lakhs Seven Thousand Seven hundred only) for the Period April 2016 to June 2017/- under proviso to sub section (1) of Section 73 Finance Act, 1994 read with S 174 of the CGST Act, 2017, applicable interest under S. 75 Finance Act, 1994 read with S 174 of the CGST Act, 2017, Penalty under Section 78 Finance Act, 1994 read with S 174 of the CGST Act, 2017 for, Penalty under Section 77 (1) (c) (ii) Finance Act, 1994 read with S 174 of the CGST Act, 2017, penalty under section 77(1)(a) & Penalty under section 77 (1) (c) (ii) Finance Act, 1994 read with S 174 of the CGST Act, 2017 be quashed as the show cause notice is time barred in view of the provision of Section 73 (1) of Finance Act, 1994 wherein there is time limit of 30 months to issue notice and extended period of limitation is not applicable in this case. ii) The Order in Original bearing No.- AC/JSR/ST-120/2024 dated 13.05.2024 (as contained in Annexure-P-5) passed by the Respondent No.-5 demanding Service tax amounting to Rs.13,07,700 (Thirteen lakhs Seven Thousand Seven hundred only) under sub section (2) to Section 73 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... suppression and misrepresentation of facts, therefore, the extended period of limitation of five years was invoked. 5. It is stated that the Order-in-Original bearing no. AC/JSR/ST-120/2024 dated 13.05.2024 (Annexure 'P5') has been issued by Respondent No. 5 who received the file on transfer of records. Respondent No. 5 has demanded the aforementioned tax amount and has imposed penalty of some amount along with applicable interest. Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order as contained in Annexure 'P5' to the writ application is liable to be set aside on the solitary ground that the impugned order has been passed after about three years from the date of issuance of the show cause notice. In this connection, learned counsel has placed before this Court sub-section (4B) of Section 73 of the Act of 1994, particularly, clause (b) thereof. It is submitted that subsection (4B) was inserted in the statute book with effect from 06.08.2014 vide Finance Act No. 2 of 2014. It is submitted that the intention behind insertion of sub-section (4B) under Section 73 of the Act of 1994 was to determine the amount of service tax which we....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e records that in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, there is no whisper from their end as to why after more than two years, a notice of personal hearing was issued on 18.12.2023. 11. In the case of M/s Kanak Automobiles (supra), the learned co-ordinate Bench of this Court has, though, held that the period prescribed in clause (b) of sub-section (4B) of Section 73 of the Finance Act cannot be taken as an absolute mandate that the proceeding should be completed within one year from the notice but at the same time, the learned co-ordinate Bench has recorded ".. but it requires the statutory authority to take all possible steps, so to do and conclude the proceedings within an year. No steps were taken in the entire one year period, which results in the frustration of the goal of expediency as required statutorily. We hence find that the proceedings cannot be continued." 12. The judgment of the learned co-ordinate Bench in M/s Kanak Automobiles (supra) was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No. 54313/2024 decided on 03.01.202, however, the Hon'ble Supreme Court refused to interfere with the judgment of the learned co-ordinate Benc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Central Excise Act, 1944 wherein the Hon'ble Court has observed as under:- 27. Similarly, the High Court of Gujarat in Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (supra), in respect of Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944, had observed as under: "When the legislature has used the expression "where it is possible to do so", it means that if in the ordinary course it is possible to determine the amount of duty within the specified time frame, it should be so done. The legislature has wisely not prescribed a time limit and has specified such time limit where it is possible to do so, for the reason that the adjudicating authority for several reasons may not be in a position to decide the matter within the specified time frame, namely, a large number of witnesses may have to be examined, the record of the case may be very bulky, huge workload, non-availability of an officer, etc. which are genuine reasons for not being able to determine the amount of duty within the stipulated time frame. However, when a matter is consigned to the call book and kept in cold storage for years together, it is not on account of it not being possible for the authority to decide the case, ....