Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + HC Service Tax - 2022 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 330 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURTRefund or adjustment against pre-deposit - interest on pre-deposit - assessee had not filed grounds opposing these demands in the reply to all the show-cause notice - HELD THAT:- In the show-cause notice there were three different independent tax demands. One was for a sum of ₹ 12,62,95,889/- for providing services to use towers by the petitioner. Second one was ₹ 38,57,094/- on account of discrepancy in the taxable value shown in the ST-3 return vis-a-vis financial records and third was of ₹ 3,96,954/- under reverse charge mechanism in respect of goods contract services from 01.07.2012 onwards. The petitioner had filed a detailed reply to the show-cause notice however in the entire reply only opposition was made to the proposed recovery of ₹ 12,62,95,889/-. In other words with respect to the other two heads of ₹ 38,57,094/- and ₹ 3,96,954/- there was no ground to oppose such demands. This reply to the show-cause notice is quite elaborate which is perused with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties and thereby come to this conclusion. The Deputy Commissioner Service Tax could not have on his own interpreted the judgment of the Tribunal as being limited to striking down the demand of ₹ 12,62,95,889/-. Learned counsel for the revenue however vehemently contended that when there was no opposition to other demands in the reply filed to the show-cause notice and when the appeal of the assessee was also confined only to the tax demand of ₹ 12,62,95,889/-, the judgment of the Tribunal must be seen in light of such facts. He may be right in pointing out that the assessee had not filed any grounds opposing these demands in the reply to the show-cause notice and the prayer in the appeal memo is also limited to challenging the principal demand of ₹ 12,62,95,889/-. However it is not open for the subordinate authority to interpret the judgment of the superior Tribunal and bestow unto himself the powers to adjust the pre-deposit amount by coming to the conclusion that the order setting aside the order in original must be given limited effect. The adjustment of the pre-deposit amounts of the petitioner made by the Deputy Commissioner is quashed. The department shall refund the said sum within a period of four months from today - Petition allowed.
|