TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 925X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner to challenge the impugned order passed by the third respondent. It would be open to the petitioner to raise all the grounds available to it, as per law, including the grounds raised in the present writ petition. - Petition dismissed, as infructuous. No costs. - Writ Petition No. 11345 of 2012, W.P. No. 8720 of 2012, M.P. Nos. 1 & 1 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 28-8-2012 - M. Jaichandren, J. N. Muthukumar for the Appellant. V. Sundareswaran for the Respondent. JUDGMENT 1. Since, the facts and the circumstances arising for consideration in the above writ petitions are the same, a common order is passed. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsels appearing for the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ership for the club or association and the mandap keeper services. The notice in question had contained an annexure proposing to bring to tax the income earned by the petitioner, from the rendering of business auxiliary services. 5. It has been further stated that the liability of the petitioner to pay tax has to be computed, on the basis of actual receipts, as per the books of accounts of the petitioner. However, the impugned show cause notice proposes to bring to tax, erroneously, the amounts, as per the figures in the balance sheet of the petitioner, as such figures do not reflect the actual position in terms of receipts. In fact the actual amounts received on account of the services relating to the renting of immovable property, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 42,51,670/- paid by the petitioner in challan and the Input Service Tax Credit. Further, the petitioner had been asked to pay the interest at the applicable rates, under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. Further, a penalty of ₹ 1,49,56,824/- had also been imposed, under Section 78 of the said Act, and a further sum of ₹ 5,000/-had been imposed, as penalty, under Section 77 of the said Act. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had further submitted that detailed written submissions, dated 12.1.2012, had been filed before the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-IV Commissionerate, the third respondent herein. In the said reply it had also been stated that further details were being collected by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994. The third respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 27.3.2012, after considering the detailed reply submitted by the petitioner, as well as the other relevant records and therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to state that the said order had been passed, illegally. All the relevant factors had been taken into account, while passing the impugned order, on 27.3.2012. Further, the additional details said to have been submitted by the petitioner, on 21.3.2012, had not been supported by the relevant documents. The petitioner had been given sufficient opportunity to produce the relevant documents in support of its claims. However, the petitioner had failed to produce the documents in spite of suf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|