2025 (11) TMI 844

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l for the parties. 3. The Petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 16 June 2010 proposing to recover service tax of Rs. 1,49,35,660/- for the period from April 2007 to March 2009. By order in original dated 30 November 2011, the demand was confirmed, and even interest and penalty were levied upon the Petitioner. The Petitioner appealed to the CESTAT on 19 March 2012. The CESTAT dismissed the Petitioner's appeal for non-compliance with the requirement of pre-deposit. Out of the total pre-deposit amount of Rs. 1 crore or thereabout, the Petitioner managed to deposit only Rs. 40 lakhs within the period prescribed. 4. On 1 April 2019, the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme was introduced through the Finance Act, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....earned counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that in similar circumstances, this Court and the High Courts of Himachal Pradesh and Madras have granted relief to the Petitioners by extending the time for payment. She relied on East Bourne Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. Order dated 2 June 2025 passed in CWP No.1950 of 2021, R. R. Housing (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Designated Committee (SVLDRS), Coimbatore (2024) 14 Centax 15 (Mad.), Sitec Labs Ltd. Vs. Union of India (2024) 20 Centax 498 (Bom.), Innovative Antares Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (2023) 6 Centax 31 (Bom.) and Cradle Runways Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (2024) 23 Centax 265 (Bom.) to support her contention. 8. Mr. Chandrasekhar submitted that he has instructions to submi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he parties would be entitled to an extension of time. 11. Apart from contending that a review is sought in Sitec Labs Ltd. (supra), Mr Chandrasekhar was unable to point out whether the decisions of this Court on the issue of extension per se had been challenged by the revenue and the outcome of such challenges. Similarly, he was unable to make any statement regarding the challenge to the Himachal Pradesh High Court's view in East Bourne Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 12. Mr. Chandrasekhar relied on a decision by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jatin S. Thakar (HUF) Vs. Union of India & Ors. Judgment dated 28 March 2024 passed in Writ Petition (L) No. 18092 of 2023, in which interest at 15% per annum was granted. He submitt....