TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1437
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hcare services through its clinical establishment. Though the Petitioner Company was not liable to pay service tax, in view of specific exemption granted under a under specific Notification No. 25/2012-Service Tax dated20.06.2012 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, however the Petitioner, as a bona fide service provider, voluntarily got itself registered under the Service Tax vide a Service Tax Code (Registration No.) AABCG9212ESDO001 as it was engaged in providing health care services. The Petitioner was registered, since the service provided by the Petitioner was specifically exempted from payment of service tax, the Petitioner did not file its return as required under Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 as the Petitioner was not liable to file the same for providing such exempted services in view of the specific relaxation granted under Clause 6.1 of the Circular No. 97/8/2007 issued under F. No. 137/85/2007-CX.4 dated 23.08.2007 by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise and Customs, Government of India. During the relevant Assessment years also i.e. 2014-15 to 2017-18, the Petitioner was continuing in providing health care se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 142(8)(a) of the Central GST Act, 2017 with applicable interest under Section 75 and imposition of penalty under Section 70, 76 and 78 of the Act. 3. In response to the aforesaid Show Cause Notice dated 17.09.2020, the Petitioner filed a detailed Reply on 06.01.2021. In the said Reply, the Petitioner made its submissions in 9 broad categories which are as follows: A. The impugned Show Cause Notice dated 17.09.2020 is vague, arbitrary and based on assumptions and presumptions and therefore, the proposed demand is liable to be dropped. B. Demand based solely on the income tax returns and financial statement was unsustainable. C. The services provided by the Noticee are exempted under Notification No. 25/2012-Central Excise dated 20.06.2012. D. No service tax is leviable on director's remuneration paid by the Noticee to its Directors. E. The Revenue from other operating income is not leviable to services tax. F. The legal expenses are not leviable to Service Tax. G. The Computation of Demand is incorrect. H. Entire demand is time barred in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....interest income from banks earned on the deposits made in the banks by the Petitioner Company which was also not taxable in view of its specific entry in the 'Negative List' attached to the Finance Act, 1994. 7. The learned senior counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that Respondent Authorities had considered the receipt of Financial Year 2014-15 to 2017-18 while arriving at the gross taxable value of the Petitioner and therefore the gross taxable value pertaining to the period from April 2014 to September 2014 and from July 2017 to March 2018 were beyond the disputed period and must not be considered while arriving at the gross total turnover. Therefore it was submitted that the gross taxable turnover was wrongly computed and the same is not tenable in the eye of law. The Petitioner also submitted various documents in support of his submissions made therein including all agreements with the Agencies from which receipts were drawn, Form 26AS showing TDS and receipts for the year 2014-15 to 2017-18 maintained with the Income Tax Department, IT Return and financial statements filed before Income Tax Department by the Petitioner Company. In the reply, the Petitioner fur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n assessee has acted in a bona fide manner. The learned senior counsel for the Petitioner referred to the provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 which specifically provided that penalty should not be imposed in certain cases and since the Petitioner acted bona fidely all throughout and there was no prejudice caused to the Department as no tax was leviable upon the Petitioner as the services provided by the Petitioner were specifically exempted under a specific Notification of the Government of India, the Petitioner was entitled for the benefits under Section 80 of the Act and as such no penalty is imposable upon the Petitioner for anything caused under a bona fide belief. In the reply, the Petitioner has also relied upon the various pronouncements of the Apex Court and various High Courts of the country. A date of hearing was fixed and the petitioner appeared on 07.12.2021 on virtual mode and reiterated the submission made in its reply to the show cause notice. The Principal Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax however did not consider any of the submissions made by the Petitioner and by order dated 25.03.2022 assessed an amount of Rs. 10,13,56,425/- as service....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Central Goods & Service Tax had it not been for the data received from the Income Tax Department, the suppression of the taxable value by the Petitioner would not have been detected and therefore the Petitioner willfully suppressed the taxable value with an intent to evade payment of Service Tax. Therefore it was held that the service tax not paid by the said Petitioner is recoverable by invoking extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. In the Order-in-Original, the Principal Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax did not consider any of the judicial pronouncement relied on by the Petitioner in support of its contention and took a contrary view to the law laid down by the Apex Court as well as the various High Courts of the Country. The Principal Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax while passing the order failed to consider that the demand which was raised on the Financial Statement furnished by the Income Tax Department but the said Financial Statements submitted to income tax department also included tax audit report wherein the Petitioner had very clearly mentioned its nature of business being "health care services" ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Tax Deduction at Source issued by the Income Tax Department showing the total amount of tax deducted at source under the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the total receipts during the relevant assessment year. In the present case the relevant 'Form 26AS' issued by the Income Tax Department clearly showed the details of the Agencies which made payments to the Petitioner with the amount of tax deducted at source. In the said Form 26AS, the various agencies which made payment to the Petitioner during the year 2014-15 to 2017-18, were all against the exempted services (health care services) and non-taxable under the Mega Notification No. 25/2012 (Service Tax) dated 20.06.2012 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India. In support of the said claim of exemption, the Petitioner submitted various contract agreements executed with such agencies before the Principal Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax. However without considering such clear evidence of exempted services/ non-taxability of the receipts, the Principal Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax proceeded erroneously and levied service tax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....osal of biomedical waste or the process incidental thereto; 3********** Therefore, it is seen that health care services rendered by a clinical establishment, an authorized medical practitioner or paramedics were exempted under Clause 2 of the said Notification dated 20.06.2012. The said Notification further provides the definition of 'health care services' under Clause 2(t) as follows: "Clause 2 (t) "health care services" means any service by way of diagnosis or treatment or care for illness, injury, deformity, abnormality or pregnancy in any recognized system of medicines in India and includes services by way of transportation of the patients to and from a clinical establishment, but does not include hair transplant or cosmetic or plastic surgery, except when undertaken to restore or to reconstruct anatomy or functions of body affected due to congenital defects, developmental abnormalities, injury or trauma:" The learned senior counsel further contented that the "Clinical Establishment" has been defined under the definition Clause 2(i) of the Notification as follows: "Clause 2(j) "clinical establishment means a hospital, nurshing home, clinic, sana....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by Payment Vouchers and other relevant documents. The services provided to various corporate and agencies during the relevant year 2014-15 to 2017-18 by the Petitioner Company and receipts thereon which are exempted under the Finance Act, 1994. 11. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the Petitioner Company provided 'health care services' under various agreements with such corporate and agencies which were exempted services under the said Notification No. 25/2012-Service Tax dated 20.06.2012. Therefore the action of the Respondent Authorities more particularly the Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax in treating the entire receipts of the Petitioner to be taxable service even after producing all documentary evidence by the Petitioner showing it to be exempted services, is therefore absolutely illegal and without jurisdiction and contrary to the express provisions of scheme of the said Notification No. 25/2012 (Service Tax) dated 20.06.2012 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs. The said action of the Principal Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax in treating the entire receipts of the Petitioner as 'taxable service' is th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order to operate the hospital. The Principal Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax while adjudicating the proceeding of the Petitioner Company grossly mislead and treated the said expenses incurred by the Petitioner Company on account of remuneration to the Directors and the legal expenses incurred and therefore in that view of the matter the impugned Order-in-Original dated 25.03.2022 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax is not tenable in law and liable to be set aside and quashed. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed putting a challenge to impugned Demand cum show cause notice dated 17.09.2020 and the impugned Order-in-Original dated 25.03.2022. 14. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that for imposition of tax, there must be a declaration of liability under the statute and which the assessee is required to comply with. It is submitted that tax cannot be imposed on an analogy and inferences based on Form 26AS statement received from the Income Tax Department. In support of his contention, the learned Senior Counsel has pressed into service Judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Chatturam Horilram Ltd. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for which the tax is imposed and for which the noticee has been held to be liable to pay tax as the same determination has not been made, the matter was remanded back to the Principal Commissioner, CGST for fresh determination and the assesses therein were given a opportunity to produce any relevant materials to show cause that the contract works for the service tax has been imposed for which the noticee is not liable to pay for such transaction. 17. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that by the said Judgment directed that after arriving at a conclusive determination reasoned order or a further demand notice as the case may be issued by the authorities. However, if on the other hand in the conclusion arrived at that the petitioner is not liable to pay service tax appropriate reason order is to be passed. It is submitted that the order has attained finality as no appeal has been preferred against the said Judgment. 18. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also pressed into service Judgment rendered in Luit Developers Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Dibrugarh (Service Tax Appeal No. 75792 of 2021) by the Customs, Excise & Service Ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the entire Service Tax liability has been imposed any on inferences and analogy without coming to a finding that the said services were liable to Service Tax under the Finance Act of 1994 the impugned Adjudication Order is absolutely illegal, without jurisdiction, and the same is liable to be set aside and quashed. 20. It is further submitted by Dr. Saraf, learned Senior Counsel that in the present case the adjudicating authority has levied service tax without examining the facts and without coming to a finding that the said services were taxable and simply on the basis of the information available in Form 26AS statement of the Income Tax, has levied the service tax on the entire amount received, on pure inferences and analogy which is not permissible in law, and thereby the said order passed by the adjudicating authority is absolutely illegal, without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be set aside and quashed. 21. The impugned order in original is further assailed on the ground that the extended period of limitation is illegal as there was no suppression, fraud, collusion or willful misstatement or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of the Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion by one party would not constitute suppression. An incorrect statement cannot be equated with a willful mis-statement. The latter implies making of an incorrect statement with the knowledge that the statement made was not correct. It was further held therein that a mere omission to give correct information is not suppression of facts unless it was deliberate to stop the payment duty in order to evade duty. 24. Referring to the Judgment of Apex Court rendered in CCE Vs. Chemphar Drugs & Liniments, reported in (1989) 2 SCC 127, the learned Senior Counsel, Dr Saraf, submits that the Apex Court while interpreting the provisions of Section 11A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1944 held that something positive other than mere inaction or failure on the part of the manufacture or producer or conscious or deliberate withholding of information when the manufacturer knew otherwise, is required before it is saddled with any liability of invoking the extended period of limitation. 25. Reliance is also placed upon the Judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Cosmic Dye Chemical Vs. CCE., reported in (1995) 6 SCC 117, it is submitted that the Apex Court therein held that the words "contrave....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he error unless there is some provision preventing a review by a Court of law. In support of his contentions, the learned Senior counsel refers to the Judgment rendered in Anisminic Ltd. Vs. Foreign Compensation Commission and another, reported in (1969) 2 WLR 163. Referring to the said Judgment, it is submitted that lack of jurisdiction may also arise if the authority in the intervening stage, while engaged on a proper enquiry, departs from the roots of natural Justice, or ask itself a wrong questions or takes into accounts matters which it was not directed to take into account. In such a situation it would amounts to a steps outside it jurisdiction. 28. The further limb of argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the levy of interest in the instant case is absolutely illegal and without jurisdiction inasmuch as where service tax itself is not payable by the petitioner as the Petitioner also informed that the contracts undertaken by the Petitioner was exempted from payment of service tax under the Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012 S.T. dated 20.06.2012 w.e.f. 01.07.2012 as amended. It is submitted that in so far as the levy of the penalty is conce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt to issue a writ of certiorari to correct the errors of an inferior court or tribunal called upon to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial functions and not to relegate the petitioner to other legal remedies available to him and a Superior Court in a proper case exercise its jurisdiction in favour of a petitioner who has allowed the time to appeal to expire or has not preferred his appeal. It cannot then be laid down as an inflexible rule that the superior Court must deny the writ when an inferior Court or tribunal by discarding the principles of natural justice and all accepted principle of procedure arrive at a conclusion which shocks the sense of justice and fair play. 30. Referring to the Judgment of this Court rendered in Hardeodas Jagannath Vs. Income Tax Officer, reported in (1961) 47 ITR 56, it is submitted that there is no inflexible rule that the existence of an alternative remedy is a bar to the issue of a writ of certiorari. The issue of various writs or directions is in the discretion of the Court and the Court while exercising its jurisdiction may take into consideration the existence of an alternative remedy as a mater of policy, but the existence of an alternativ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itself and elaborate provisions are prescribed for ventilating grievances of the assesses who are aggrieved by any orders passed by the GST authorities. Therefore the writ petition should be dismissed and the petitioner should be relegated to avail of the statutory alternative remedies prescribed. Unless the petitioner had availed of these remedies, there is no scope for entertaining the instant writ petition. Therefore, since the petitioners did not avail statutory remedy, the petition should be dismissed on this limited ground and the parties be relegated to the avail of the statutory remedy prescribed. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the respondent relies upon the following Judgments: 1. GNRC Limited Vs. Union of India, reported in 2024 0 Supreme (Gau) 973; 2. PHR Invent Educational Society Vs. UCO Bank and Ors, reported in 2024 0 Supreme SC 333; 3. Brahmaputra Television Network Vs. Union of India, reported in 2024 0 Supreme (Gau) 855 4. M/S Sailaja Commercial Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors, (W.A. No. 188/2022) 5. Bekem Infra Projects Ltd Vs. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, [SLP(C) No. 27712/2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m 26AS which is obtained from the Income Tax Department. In ChatturamHoliram Ltd (Supra), the Apex Court held that there are three stages in the imposition of tax. There has to be a declaration of liability, which is the part of the statute which determines what persons in respect of what property are liable to pay the tax. Then there has to the assessment. The liability to pay taxes does not depend on the assessment which has already been fixed by the statute. But the assessment specifies the exact sum which a person is found to be liable to pay and finally the modes of recovery of taxes which are assessed in the event the assessee refuses to pay voluntarily. The relevant paragraphs of this Judgments are extracted below: "As has been pointed out by the Federal Court in Chatturam Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar [(1947) F.C.R. 116 at 126; 15 ITR 302, at 302] (quoting from the judgment of Lord Dunedin in Whitney Vs. Commissioners of Inland Revenue [(1926) A.C. 37] 'there are three stages in the imposition of a tax. There is the declaration of liability, that is the part of the statute which determines what persons in respect of what property are liable. Next, there is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the same. The legislature cannot enact a law imposing or authorizing the imposition of a tax thereupon and they are not liable to any such imposition of tax. If they are thus not liable to tax, no tax can be levied or imposed on them and they do not come within the purview of the Act at all. The very fact of their non-liability to tax is sufficient to exclude them from the calculation of the gross turnover as well as the net turnover on which sales tax can be levied or imposed. It is no doubt true that in construing fiscal statutes and in determining the liability of a subject to tax one must have regard to the strict letter of the law and not merely to the spirit of the statute or the substance of the law. If the Revenue satisfies the Court that the case falls strictly within the provisions of the law, the subject can be taxed. If, on the other hand, the case is not covered within the four corners of the provisions of the taxing statute, no tax can be imposed by inference or by analogy or by trying to probe into the intentions of the legislature and by considering what was the substance of the matter. We must of necessity, therefore, have regard to the actual ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s served under that sub-section, a statement, containing the details of service tax not levied or paid or short levied or short paid or erroneously refunded for the subsequent period, on the person chargeable to service tax, then, service of such statement shall be deemed to be service of notice on such person, subject to the condition that the grounds relied upon for the subsequent period are same as are mentioned in the earlier notices (2) The Central Excise Officer shall after considering the representation, if any, made by the person on whom notice is served under sub-section (1), determine the amount of service tax due from, or erroneously refunded to, such person (not being in excess of the amount specified in the notice) and thereupon such person shall pay the amount so determined. (3) ................... 45. A perusal of the Section 73 of the Finance Act reveals that the extended period in respect of recovery of service tax not levied or paid or short levied or short paid or erroneously refunded can be invoked only when any or more of the conditions prescribed under the proviso to the said section is present. Under the proviso to the said section, there....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th a wilful misstatement. The latter implies making of an incorrect statement with the knowledge that the statement was not correct. 48. In CEE Vs Chemphar Drugs & Liniments (Supra), while interpreting provisions of Section 11A of the Act of 1944, the Apex Court held that something positive other than mere inaction or failure on the part of the manufacturer or producer or conscious or deliberate withholding of information when the manufacturer knew otherwise is required, before it is saddled with any liability, before (sic beyond) the period of six months. Whether in a particular set of facts and circumstances there was any fraud or collusion or willful misstatement or suppression or contravention of any provision of any Act, is a question of fact depending upon the facts and circumstances of a particular case. 49. In Cosmic Dye Chemical (Supra), the Apex Court again while examining Section 11 A of the Act of 1944 held that the emphasis is on the requisite intent i.e the intent to evade payment of duty which is built into the very works of section. The Apex Court held that even misstatement or suppression of fact are clearly qualified by the words "willful" preceeding the wor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecessarily be a case which falls under any or all the conditions specified under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the CGST Act. From a plain reading of the impugned Order-in-Original, it is evident that there is no finding by the Adjudicating Authority that the case of the petitioner can be considered to be a case which falls under the conditions specified in proviso to Section 73(1). Under such circumstances, the impugned Order-in-Original appears to the Court to have been assumption of jurisdiction by the revenue authorities which was not otherwise vested on the said authority. For the revenue authorities to invoke powers under Section 73(1), there must be a finding and a conclusion arrived at based on the facts of the case that the petitioner assessee had willfully and deliberately resorted to fraud, collusion, willful misstatement, suppression of facts of contravention of any of the provision thereunder with the intent to evade payment of service tax. Therefore, for invocation of the powers proviso to Section 73(1), there must be a conclusive finding arrived at by the Revenue authorities that the petitioner assessee had resorted to any or all for these acts or omissions with the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of an Act of Parliament". This perhaps illustrates the clear distinction which exists between an error when in the exercise of jurisdiction and an error in deciding whether jurisdiction can be assumed: in the latter case an error may have the consequence that jurisdiction was lacking and was wrongly assumed and the result would be that any purported decision would have no validity. The Court held that lack of jurisdiction may arise in various ways. There may be an absence of those formalities or things which are conditions precedent to the tribunal having any jurisdiction to embark on an inquiry. Or the tribunal may at the end make an order that it has no jurisdiction to make. Or in the intervening stage, while engaged on a proper inquiry, the tribunal may depart from the rules of natural justice; or it may ask itself the wrong questions; or it may take into account matters which it was not directed to take into account. Thereby it would step outside its jurisdiction. It would turn its inquiry into something not directed by Parliament and fail to make the inquiry which Parliament did direct. Any of these things would cause its purported decision to be a nullity. 53. Again in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y Courts in India and followed in several cases in the context of examination of jurisdiction vested on Tribunals and Court of limited jurisdiction. In Dhirajlal Girdharilal Vs. CIT, Bombay, reported in AIR 1955 SC 271, the Apex Court held that when a Court of fact acts on materials partly relevant and partly irrelevant, it is impossible to say to what extent the mind of the Court was affected by the irrelevant materials used by it in arriving at its finding and such a finding is vitiated because of use of inadmissible material and thereby a question of law arises. 57. In Ram Avtar Sharma Vs. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 1985 SC 915, the Apex Court held that discretionary power must be exercised on relevant and not on irrelevant or extraneous considerations. It means that power must be exercised taking into account the considerations mentioned in the statute. If the statute mentions no such considerations, then the power is to be exercised on considerations relevant to the purpose of which it is conferred. On the other hand, if the authority concerned pays attention to, or takes into account, wholly irrelevant or extraneous circumstances, events or matters or considerations....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... information available in form 26AS of the Income Tax Act, the sole basis for the purpose of levy of service tax. The authority did not consider the services rendered by the petitioner were exempted from levy of service tax or the liability to pay the service tax on the said services was on the recipient on the services. Since the adjudicating authority did not take into consideration those relevant materials which it was bound to take into consideration and on the other hand it had taken into consideration factors and materials, which if not irrelevant and not germane for deciding the liability of the service tax, cannot establish the liability of the assessee, then the said actions of the adjudicating authority is certainly without jurisdiction and/or is in excess of jurisdiction and thereby the impugned actions, orders and notices issued by the adjudicating authority are liable to interfered with by this Court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 63. Coming to the question of maintainability of the writ petition in view of the availability of statutory alternative remedy, the respondents have raised objections that wha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ring the exhaustion of statutory remedies before the writ is granted is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than rule of law and instances are numerous where a writ of certiorari has been issued in spite of the fact that the aggrieved party had other adequate legal remedies. 67. In Bhopal Sugar Industries Vs. D.P Dubey, reported in AIR 1967 SC 549, the Apex Court held that the High Court has undoubted jurisdiction to decide the writ application whether the taxing authority has arrogated to itself, powers which it does not posses or has committed serious errors of procedure which has affected the validity of the decision or where the taxing authority threatens to recover tax on an interpretation of the statute which is erroneous. 68. In Altafur Rahman Vs. Union of India, reported in (1986) 1 GLR 14, this Court held that when the challenges of the petitioner go to the root of the jurisdiction of the Controller and therefore the writ petition cannot be dismissed without disposing the contentions of the petitioner on merits. 69. In Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registration of Trade Mark, reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1, the Apex Court on the question of alternative rem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion. Since a jurisdictional issue was raised by the appellant in the writ petition questioning the very competence of the Revisional Authority to exercise suo motu power, being a pure question of law, we are of the considered view that the plea raised in the writ petition did deserve a consideration on merits and the appellants writ petition ought not to have been thrown out at the threshold." 71. Again in Union of India Vs. Parashtom Dass, reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 314, the Apex Court held that the provision of Article 226 of the Constitution forming part of the basic structure of the Constitution and that the self-restraint of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is distinct from putting an embargo on the High Court in exercising this jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution while judicially reviewing a decision arising from an order of the Tribunal. The relevant Paragraphs are extracted below: "A High Court Judge has immense experience. In any exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, the High Courts are quite conscious of the scope and nature of jurisdiction, which in turn would depend on the nature of the matter. We believ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....statute that the authorities must come to a specific conclusion that the jurisdiction conferred on the revenue authorities under Section 73 (1) can be invoked in the facts and circumstances of the present case. As have been elaborately discussed in the preceeding paragraphs that for invocation of jurisdiction under section 73(1), the respondent authorities must come to a conclusion that the invocation of the powers under section 73 (1) is necessary as the petitioner's case falls under any of the conditions mentioned in the proviso to section 73(1) of the CGST Act. However, from the recital of the order impugned, it is seen that the primary reason for invoking the jurisdiction under section 73(1) is non furnishing of the required documents by the petitioner assessee to be full satisfaction of the respondent authorities. This mere non furnishing of documents or information in itself cannot be construed to have given rise to a situation under any or all of these five conditions under proviso to section 73(1) in order to levy service tax by extending limitation bythe revenue authorities who have invoked this powers under section 73(1). Under such circumstances, ordinarily the revenue a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....while examining the facts and circumstances in minute detail and the exposition of the law laid down by various Courts including this Court as well as the Apex court of the country has held that for the Revenue authorities to invoke the powers under section 73(1), there must be a conclusive finding by the Revenue authorities that the petitioner assessee under the facts and circumstances, had wilfully and deliberately evaded or neglected to pay the GST. This conclusion by the Revenue authorities is not apparent and discernible from a plain reading of the impugned order in original. It is not a case that the petitioner assessee never responded to the notices. It is not a case that the documents which were called for required to be submitted were not furnished. The ST-3 Returns filed by the petitioner assessee were available in the records of the revenue authorities and which would have given a complete picture of the services rendered by petitioner assessee and/or whether such services come within the ambit of service taxes or are excluded by any circular or notification issue. However, there is no finding by the revenue authorities as to why this aspect was not examined. There is no....