TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 1095X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bility on the part of the incumbents, who held the office of the 3rd respondent from time to time, is evident from the fact that they just sat over the matter and did not release even a single rupee to the petitioner. If this is the treatment accorded to a Government of India undertaking, one can easily understand the type of treatment, which the officials of that Department are exhibiting towards ordinary citizens. It is to the effect that the Board issued Circular, dated 18.12.2002 clarifying that the activity of laying of cables and erection of equipment would attract service tax, since it falls under the technical assistance rendered by Consulting Engineer. The lack of bona fides on the part of the deponent of the counter affidavit i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have started with reference to some assessees, the tendency, if percolates into mind of an officer, refuses to differentiate between the ordinary assessees and the Government organizations. The petitioner is a Government of India undertaking brought into existence by the Indian Railways, for the purpose of rendering high level consultancy and technical services. The Act came into existence in the year 1998 and the petitioner got itself registered under it. In the year 1998, it entered into a contract with Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) and rendered its services in the matter of laying optic fiber cables. The petitioner entered into another contract with BSNL for rendering consultancy services for, and the execution of the work of la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the respondents, a detailed counter affidavit is filed. It is stated that though the activity as regards which the service tax was paid was not under the purview of the Act at the relevant point of time, the Central Board of Excise and Customs (for short the Board) issued a Circular, dated 18.12.2002 stating that the activity is very much under the purview of the Act. It is also pleaded that the petitioner is not entitled for refund, since it did not furnish the required proof and the claim is made beyond the period of limitation. An objection is also raised as to the very maintainability of the writ petition. We are indeed shocked to note the manner in which the 3rd respondent has treated the petitioner herein. It appears that the off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been verified as to whether BSNL paid any amount to the petitioner towards service tax. The irresponsibility on the part of the incumbents, who held the office of the 3rd respondent from time to time, is evident from the fact that they just sat over the matter and did not release even a single rupee to the petitioner. If this is the treatment accorded to a Government of India undertaking, one can easily understand the type of treatment, which the officials of that Department are exhibiting towards ordinary citizens. Another objectionable attitude exhibited by the 3rd respondent is evident from the counter affidavit itself. The ground, which was not raised either when the order dated 31.03.2002 was passed or before the appellate aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
