9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 634X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... siness auxiliary services. The facts in the impugned order would reveal that the petitioner was engaged in the business of lending money to customers, against gold that was pledged by the said customers with the petitioner. It would appear that the loan amounts were then assigned by the petitioner to reputed banks who would pay the petitioner the purchase consideration for the loan amounts assigned to them, the consideration being worked out as the total of the principal amount, interest and other charges. This was as against the book value of the receivables which was admittedly lower. The respondent authorities computed the difference between the purchase price and the book value of the receivables and treated this as consideration receiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner. It is also pointed out that the 2nd respondent, in Ext.P8 order, grossly erred in treating the amounts received by the petitioner as consideration for services rendered whereas in actual fact, the said amounts only represented the interest that the petitioner was entitled to in respect of loans advanced to various customers. It is also the case of the petitioner that while issuing the show cause notice in terms of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, as amended, the respondents have not first resorted to the provisions of Section 72 to complete a best judgment assessment against the petitioner, and therefore, to that extent, the issuance of the show cause notice even prior to the completion of that exercise was bad in law. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion and, at any rate, this is not a contention that was available to the petitioner in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On the issue of invoking the provisions of Sections 72 and 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, as amended, it is pointed out that the show cause notices are issued by invoking the power under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, and Section 72 only provides for the manner in which assessment is done for the purposes of recovering the amount due as per Section 73. In that view of the matter, there is no illegality in invoking the provisions of both Sections 72 and 73 while issuing the notices to the petitioner. 4. I have considered the submissions of counsel on either side. I find that Ext.P8 is an ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appeal. (See: Garikapati Veeraya v. N.Subbiah Choudhry and Other (AIR 1957 SC 540); Messrs Hoosein Kasam Dada (India) Ltd v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, (AIR 1953 SC 221; Vitthalbhai Naranbhai Patel V. Commissioner of Sales Tax M P Nagpur (AIR 1967 SC 344) and Ramesh Singh and Another v. Cinta Devi and Others (1996 (3) SCC 142) . In that view of the matter, I find that the petitioner, in whose case also the lis commenced in 2012, would not be required to deposit the amount of 7.5%, as required pursuant to the 2014 amendment, and in that respect, he would have an efficacious alternate remedy before the Tribunal where he can file an appeal, together with an application for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of the amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
