Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2014 (9) TMI 333

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in the matter, shall minutely scrutinize and if necessary, obtain information from the Kolkata office with regard to the petitioner’s liability of payment of service tax under the head of “Clearing and Forwarding Agent” relating to the transactions covered under notice dated 23-5-2006. In respect of the period subsequent to 31-3-2004, it would be open for the respondent to proceed further against the petitioner by considering petitioner’s reply to show cause notice in that regard, if at all found necessary in the changed circumstances after excluding the period of transaction from 1-9-1999 to 31-3-2004. A clear order of exclusion of transactions in respect of overlapping period shall be passed by respondent No. 2 before proceeding furth .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ers as per various agreements entered with its customers namely M/s. Larsen and Toubro Ltd., M/s. Ultra Tech Chemco Ltd. and M/s. Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner carries out activities of supervision and coordination from its branch offices at Bilaspur and Raipur. According to the petitioner, it has got itself registered under Centralized Registration at Kolkata on 5th November, 2004 in the name and style of M/s. Naresh Kumar Co. Pvt. Ltd. with registered address as that of the company under the service head Business Auxiliary Services . 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by show cause notice dated 23-5-2006 issued by respondent No. 2, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why service tax demand of ₹ 1,46,55,861/-, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the respondent No. 2 at Raipur has no territorial jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings of recovery of tax. It has been urged that as a matter of fact, the petitioner has already been assessed to service tax in respect of Clearing and Forwarding Agent Services in respect of the period from 1-9-1999 to 31-3-2004 under notice dated 18-10-2004 issued by the office of Central Excise Intelligence, Kolkata, which has also passed order of assessment on 25-4-2006 and the matter is now pending before the Tribunal. Therefore, the petitioner could not be proceeded against by respondent No. 2 in respect of the same transaction attracting liability towards payment of service tax. In addition, it has also been submitted that the computation and dete .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hat the petitioner had provided services as Clearing and Forwarding Agent to its consumers in Chhattisgarh. After making necessary enquiry, collecting material, show cause notice has been issued. Therefore, in view of the provision contained in the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 73 of the Act of 1994, the notice is within the limitation as in place of one year, it has to be treated as 5 years. It is also submitted that respondent-authority had no notice and knowledge of petitioner being assessed to service tax under the head Clearing and Forwarding Agent by the Kolkata office of the Excise Department in respect of the period from 1-9-1999 to 31-3-2004. Now, when the petitioner has submitted his reply and these facts have been det .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ity at Raipur. The transactions mentioned in the notice dated 23-5-2006 and notice dated 18-10-2004 are also overlapping and most of the transactions, on bare perusal, appear to be the same. It is also not in dispute by the respondents that on 25-4-2006, the Commissioner, Service Tax, Kolkata has passed an order of assessment and that order has also been challenged and the matter is presently pending before the Tribunal. 10. The respondents have not seriously disputed the overlapping of the transactions and the period covering those transactions under two assessment proceedings. This aspect, therefore, requires consideration by the respondent authorities. The petitioner has already submitted a reply highlighting these issues. Therefore, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates