TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 703X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... effective from 1.6.2007 on which date levy was initially provided is also not bad. However, as regards prayer for deposit of service tax under the Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme 2013 is concerned, it shall be open for the petitioner to file representation to the appropriate authority at the first instance and claim benefit of the same, if available, in accordance with law. - Decided against assessee. - CWP No.28348 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 20-1-2014 - Ajay Kumar Mittal And Anita Chaudhry,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Bansal, Advocate ORDER Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. 1. Prayer in this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for quashing notification dated 22.5.2007, Circ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s' liable to excise duty. Since immovable property is neither 'service' nor 'goods', input credit cannot be taken. On 13.3.2008, respondent No.2 issued a notice to the petitioner stating that service tax had been imposed on immovable rent property w.e.f 1.6.2007 and demanded service tax at the rate of 12.36% on the licence fee paid from 1.6.2007 within one week of the issue of the said notice. The petitioner replied to the notice pleading that service tax was not leviable on the rent and if at all the same was chargeable, respondent No.2 was liable to bear the same. Respondent No.2 again issued notice dated 27.3.2008 to the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed CWP No.9676 of 2008 in this Court. The said pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e application of the provisions of service tax was pending before the Apex Court, the petitioner requested the concerned authorities to receive his due service tax in terms of the aforesaid scheme but respondent No.3 failed to consider the same. The respondents on 26.7.2013 again issued a fresh notice to the petitioner for payment of due amount alongwith interest. According to the petitioner, as per the aforesaid scheme, the alleged demand against him is of ` 46,88,477/- only out of which a sum of ` 43,57,694/- already stands deducted from his deposits. As such, a balance amount of `3,30,783/- only is pending. The petitioner filed reply to the notice. The petitioner avers that the levy of service tax retrospectively w.e.f 1.6.2007 by Financ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
