TMI Blog2006 (4) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uantifying the amount recoverable from it. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that although the record summoned by the respondents in connection with the proposed assessment proceedings has already been submitted yet the respondents have neither concluded the proceeding nor indicated the reasons for their failure. On the contrary, they have threatened the officials of the petitioner with arrest and detention and thereby coerced them to pay a huge amount of money towards tax which has not so far been held payable. The following relief has in the above backdrop been prayed for: "(a)Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the service-tax assessment records pertaining to the petitioner for the period 10-09-2004 to 31-03-2005 and after goi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled by the petitioner within the time stipulated by the assessing authority, although according to learned Counsel for the petitioner a regular return for the period 10th September, 2004 to 31st March, 2005 was eventually filed on 25th July, 2005 and a similar return for the period commencing 1st April, 2005 to 30th September, 2005 was filed in December, 2005. Mr. Malhotra also drew our attention to a communication dated 18th October, 2005, received by the Assistant Commissioner, Service Tax from the petitioner-Airports Authority of India pointing out the difficulties in the submission of the data being demanded by the Assessing Officer. The communication inter alia says: "We are a large organisation having airports at 126 locations and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , either applied for or produced by the petitioner. Relying upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. M. Ramarao Ors., W.P. No 1881/2004 disposed of on 15th July, 2004, Mr. Maihotra prayed for the dismissal of this petition with costs. 4. There are two distinct prayers which the petitioner has made in this petition, one relates to the demand made by the assessing authority for furnishing of records necessary for finalising the assessment proceedings, while the other relates to the alleged harassment of the petitioner at the hands of the respondents for recovery of the outstanding dues on non-traffic revenue which the petitioner considers to be rental income not exigible to tax. Insofar as the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld to be not taxable but that does not necessarily affect the jurisdiction of the authority to make an assessment order. It is not a case of total lack of jurisdiction on the part of the authority to initiate the proceedings or to complete the same so as to call for any interference from a writ Court. The first prayer made in the writ petition accordingly rejected. 6. Even in regard to the second prayer, we see no reason to interfere. The writ jurisdiction of this writ petition is purely discretionary especially when petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus. There is nothing before us to show that any of the respondents have threatened, coerced or harassed the petitioner for paying any amount. On the contrary, the letter which the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
