9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 882X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. Darshan M. Parikh, Adv. ORAL ORDER Akil Kureshi, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties for final disposal of the petition. Petitioners have challenged the action of the respondents in seeking recovery of service tax dues of the petitioners on the ground that show cause notice proceedings for recovery are pending and the petitioners have several disputes to such recoveries being made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d with the department. In some other cases, service tax was not received though required to be collected. Be that as it may, on the basis of the investigation carried out, the competent authority issued a show cause notice dated 23.10.2013, calling upon the petitioners why service tax of Rs.1,86,94,281 be not recovered with interest and penalties under sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act 1994 be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On the other hand, case of the department put forth before us in the form of affidavit in reply and through the contentions of the cousnel is that the petitioners had virtually admitted the service tax liability to the tune of Rs.1.50 crores. Service tax though collected form their clients was not deposited with the department. The department was, therefore, within its right to seek recovery. Up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, service tax is not applicable. We are not judging the validity of such contentions. All that we are suggesting is that when the show cause notice was issued by the department to which the petitioners have raised their objections, recoveries without adjudication of such disputed taxes was simply not permissible in law. We notice that section 73C of the Finance Act 1994 allows the department to m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
