2026 (4) TMI 155

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tage of admission itself with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3.In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order in Order-in-Original C.No.V/BAS/15/17/2009-ST ADJN dated 24.12.2025 passed under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 by the 2nd respondent for the Financial Year 2006-2008. By the impugned order, part of the demand proposed in Show Cause Notice dated 06.08.2009 for the Financial Year 2004- 2008 has been confirmed against the petitioner. 4.The impugned order itself drops the demand for the Financial Year 2004-2006 and confirmed the demand for the Financial Year 2006-2008 as detailed below:- "i. I hold that the e....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... vii. I impose a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) on M/s Mehta Export Corporation under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 as discussed supra." 5.The issue prima facie appears to be covered against the petitioner on merits in terms of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Orient Crafts Ltd. vs. Union of India., (2007) 7 VST 43 and Glyph International Ltd. vs. Union of India., (2012) 25 STR 209. 6.Prima facie, the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner that failure to intimate the transfer of the case to the call book earlier in respect of the show cause notice issued on 06.08.2009 is fatal, as the transfer itself was intimated for the first time on 21.02.2025. 7.The learned couns....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f India [2009 (13) STR 235], having been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, service tax liability on any taxable service provided by a non-resident or a person located outside to a recipient in India, would arise with effect from 18.4.2006, i.e. after enactment of Section 66A of Finance Act, 1994. 3.As far as the period post 18.4.2006 is concerned, the views of the Delhi and Allahabad High Courts in (2007) 7 VST 43 (Orient Crafts Ltd. v. Union of India) and (2012) 25 STR 209 (Glyph International Ltd. v. Union of India) respectively favour the department. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted leave to appeal and the matters are yet to be listed for final disposal. 4.In the aforesaid facts and circumsta....