Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + HC Service Tax - 2018 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 182 - HC - Service TaxJurisdiction to issue SCN - two SCN on the same issue for overlapping period - SCN invoking extended period of limitation - CBEC Circular dated August 12, 2016 - Rule 10 of the Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012. Is any of the two impugned show-cause notices without jurisdiction? - Held that:- Both the impugned notices give adequate reasons for invoking the provisions for extended period of limitation. In light of the evidence coming to the authorities, on the basis of the statement of the petitioner and otherwise, the petitioner is obliged to face the proceedings emanating on the basis of the two show-cause notices. The reasons are a plausible view on the subject matter. A Writ Court need not interfere when the view taken is plausible - There is no lack of jurisdiction in issuing any of the two show-cause notices - issue is answered in the negative and against the petitioner. Is the impugned circular dated August 12, 2016 of CBEC bad in law? - Held that:- The impugned circular puts the authorities on notice that, there can be two kinds of freight forwarders as noted therein and for the reasons given, the tax incidence for each of them would be different. By the impugned circular, an authority is required, after considering the individual case on merits, to identify the category in which the freight forwarder falls and then calculate the tax incidence accordingly - The impugned circular cannot be read to have imposed any restrictions or any authority or to be contrary to the provisions of any statute or to have whittled down any provision of any Rule or being contrary to any Rule or to determine any show-cause notice in any particular way. The impugned circular requires the authorities to look into the accounts of a freight forwarder in the light of the two nature of businesses noted therein and arrive at the tax incidence - the impugned circular dated August 12, 2016 cannot be held to be bad in law - issue is answered in the negative and against the petitioner. To what relief or reliefs are the parties entitled to? - Held that:- In view of the first two issues being answered against the petitioner, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
|