Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + HC Service Tax - 2017 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 452 - BOMBAY HIGH COURTJurisdiction - power of Settlement Commission to reject an application - case of petitioner was that the application cannot be rejected subsequent to the stage of subsection 1 of section 32-F on the ground of bar created by section 32-O. Paragraph 9 is exactly to the contrary - penalty - Held that: - section 32-O creates a bar for entertaining subsequent application for settlement. It provides that the bar will be attracted if there is an imposition of penalty on the person who makes an application for settlement on the ground of concealment of his duty liability. If the order dated 31st October 2014 is read in its entirety, there is a finding that particulars of the duty liability were concealed and were disclosed subsequently as set out in paragraph 2.1 of the said order. The bar under clause (i) of subsection 1 of section 32-O is attracted once it is established that there was a penalty imposed on the ground of concealment of particulars of duty liability. There is no specific requirement that the penalty should be imposed under section 78. Moreover, the said order of imposing penalty has become final. Therefore, the petitioner is bound by the said order and findings recorded therein. Therefore, we cannot accept the submission that there was no penalty imposed which is covered by clause (i) of subsection 1 of section 32-O. There is an option available for the Settlement Commission either to reject the application or to proceed with the application. If subsection 5 of Section 32-F is considered, it is apparent that even after crossing the stage of subsection 1 of section 32-F, the Settlement Commission is empowered to reject the application. In fact, subsection 5 of section 32-F clearly indicates that the Commission may pass such order as it thinks fit on the matters covered by the applications. Section 32-O is a disqualification provided for entertaining an application for settlement. Therefore, the argument that after crossing the stage of subsection 1 of section 32-F, the application cannot be rejected on the basis of the bar created by section 32-O, cannot be accepted at all. In the fact of the present case, the impugned order itself records that that the applicants before the Settlement Commission were put to notice that the contention regarding bar of section 32-O would taken into consideration. Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
|