9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 694X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent. JUDGMENT Rule : Mr. Y.V. Ravani, learned Standing Counsel appearing for revenue waives service of rule. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 7-10-2008 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Service tax Division-III, Ahmedabad rejecting the declaration filed by the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... follow up with the Bank seeking clarity as to who will bear the Service tax and whose responsibility would it be to pay the service tax. Despite all its efforts it was unable to collect the service tax from the Bank. Despite not being able to collect service tax from the Bank, the petitioner paid the service tax of Rs. 6 lacs through various challans over the period. The department after inquiry, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2008 and pursuant to the said intimation the petitioner preferred an application on 22-9-2008 in the prescribed form being declaration under Section-94 of the Finance Act, 2008. In the said application it was clearly stated that the outstanding is of DRS is Rs. 8,737/- as the petitioner has already paid Rs. 6 lacs earlier. The said application was, however, rejected on 7-10-2008 on the ground that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... since there is no dispute about such payment the remaining liability was only to the extent of Rs. 8,737/-. Hence, an application preferred by the petitioner under the Scheme which wrongly denied to the petitioner on the ground that false particulars were filed. As such the particulars were true and correct and duly supported by necessary evidence to that effect. 7. Mr. Y.N. Ravani, learned Stand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payment of Rs. 6 lacs is considered then admittedly the balance amount of Rs. 8,737/- remains outstanding and on that basis the petitioner is entitled to avail the benefit of the scheme. Thus, the petitioner's application cannot be rejected on the ground that the petitioner has supplied false information with regard to payment of Rs. 6 lacs. 9. In the above view of the matter, the impugned order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
