Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + HC Service Tax - 2016 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (6) TMI 835 - HC - Service TaxProbability of arresting the Directors or employees of the petitioner - non payment of service tax - investigation are on - fear of coercive proceedings for recovery of the amount, styled as 'Service Tax', under the provisions of Finance Act, 1994, without following the mandate of Section 73 and/or 73A thereof - he Petitioners claim that they carry on a legitimate business activity by arranging for hotel accommodation for those travelling and that is how they provide online air, rail, cab and hotel booking through a website www.cleartrip.com. Petitioner No.1-Company states that it allows its customers, inter alia, to book hotels through its online portal. Held that:- The Petitioners do not dispute the right to investigate and in accordance with law. That they have already attended the offices of the concerned Respondents and once the statement of the Petitioners was recorded goes without saying that on further summons being issued and on called upon to attend the Officers of the Respondents, they will attend and co-operate in these investigations by producing all the documents and answering the requisite queries, subject, of-course, to their rights in law. It is only when these investigations conclude that the authorities would be in a position to take a decision whether to launch any prosecution. In such a prosecution as well, if the provisions of the Criminal Law, which enable arrest in cases of cognizable offences and nonbailable, that the Petitioners can have an apprehension and which also can be taken care of by approaching a competent Criminal Court. Secondly, there is no question of any recovery of tax by coercive means, unless the investigation results into issuance of a show cause notice, an opportunity to the Petitioner to resist the demand, a adjudication thereof by a reasoned order and protective remedies such as appeals. We do not think that any recovery by coercive measures is straightway permissible and particularly in the given facts and circumstances of the case. Once we also note the stand of the Respondents as not precipitating the matter particularly harming the life and liberty of those, who are in-charge of Petitioner No.1-Company, then, all the more, any detailed discussion by referring to the arguments in-depth, consideration of the case law becomes unnecessary. The Writ Petition is disposed of.
|