Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Muthoot Finance Ltd. Versus Union of India And Others

2015 (3) TMI 634 - KERALA HIGH COURT

Waiver of pre-deposit - whether the petitioner would have to deposit the amount of 7.5% of the tax confirmed against him, as a condition for pursuing the appellate remedy before the Tribunal - Business auxiliary services - business of lending money to customers, against gold that was pledged by the said customers with the petitioner - Held that:- the institution of a suit carries with it an implication that all rights of appeal then in force are preserved to the parties thereto till the rest of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

edy before the Tribunal where he can file an appeal, together with an application for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of the amounts confirmed against him. - If the petitioner prefers a duly constituted appeal under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994, as they stood prior to 16.08.2014, then the Appellate Tribunal shall number the Appeal, and consider the application filed by the petitioner for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of the amounts confirmed against him by .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is against Ext.P8 order passed by the 2nd respondent, confirming a demand of service tax and penalty on the petitioner. The demand of service tax has been confirmed against the petitioner under the head of business 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 pet .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ey were required to perform under agreements entered into with the assignee banks in connection with the loans that were assigned to them. It is the service tax on the said amounts that was thus arrived at and demanded from the petitioner by Ext.P8 order, which is impugned in the writ petition. 2. I have heard Sri.K.I.Mayankutty Mather, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Saiby Jose ,Kidangoor , the learned Standing counsel for the respondents. On behalf of the petitioner, it is conte .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

were all recorded in the audited balance sheet and profit and loss accounts which were regularly filed the statutory authorities from time to time. It is contended, therefore, that in as much as there was adequate disclosure of the receipt of the consideration amounts pointed out by the department, there was no justification whatsoever for invoking the larger period of limitation under the statute, while confirming the demand of service tax against the petitioner. It is also pointed out that th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ction 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 further pointed out that the computation of the demand in the impugned order is erroneous in that it does not take into account the fact that there were amounts that were paid by the petitioner to the assignee banks, by way of interest on a discounting arrangement that was in vogue between .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

against Ext.P8 order of the 2nd respondent, in that they can prefer an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal against the said order. It is pointed out that by virtue of the amendment that was introduced into the Finance Act, 1994, with effect from 16.08.2014, the petitioner is required to deposit only 7.5% of the tax amount confirmed against it, as a condition for preferring an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. It is also the contention of the respondents that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 order passed by the 2nd respondent, against whi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Pradesh has taken a prima facie view that, in as much as the lis in question had commenced prior to the introduction of the amendment to the Finance Act, 1994, with effect from August 2014, the petitioner's right of appeal as per the erstwhile provisions of law would not be affected by the provisions introduced by the amendment of 2014. Although not expressly referred to in the interim order dated 19.02.2015 passed by the High Court of Telengana & Andhra Pradesh in WP 3393/2015, the vie .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. 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 am .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version