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

Himalaya Construction Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi Versus Union of India and others

2015 (12) TMI 1055 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Demand of service tax - waiver of pre-deposit - No detailed reasons have been given on the issues regarding the jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority and whether the service provided by the petitioner was labile to service tax - Violation of principle of natural justice - Held that:- Impugned order has been passed by respondent No.3 without considering the overall material on record including the reply to the show cause notice submitted by the petitioner. No detailed reasons have been given .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ew Delhi, by calling the complete record from there, within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order - Appeal disposed of. - CWP No. 12952 of 2015 - Dated:- 3-9-2015 - MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MR. RAMENDRA JAIN, JJ. For The Petitioner : Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate For The Respondents : Mr. Sukhdev Sharma, Advocate Ramendra Jain, J. 1. The petitioner prays for a direction to set aside the order dated 9.4.2015, Annexure P.2 passed by the Principal Commissioner, Central E .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

made. 2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 by the name and title of M/s Himalaya Construction Company (P) Limited located at New Delhi. Respondent No.2 is the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi Zone who has jurisdiction over the Commissionerate of Central Excise and Service Tax, Panchkula. Respondent No.3 is the Principal Commissioner of Centra .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

41 as education cess plus ₹ 240,095/- as SHE cess and penalty of ₹ 2,47,32,434 arising out of the show cause notices dated 15.10.2012, Annexure P.3. According to the petitioner, the order had been passed ex parte and without considering its reply. As per provisions of the Act, the petitioner had right to file appeal to the Tribunal. However, by amendment to section 35F of the Finance Act, 2014, the power of the Tribunal to stay recovery of pre-deposit of an amount equal to 7.5% of 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

e said two cases to the Commissionerate of Central Excise and Service Tax Panchkula and thus the jurisdiction for adjudication of the case had been taken away from the Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi. The third and fourth show cause notices for ₹ 98,95,590/- and ₹ 3,96,14,945/- to the petitioner dated 22.5.2014 and 28.5.2015 were issued being answerable to the Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi II. According to the petitioner, two show cause notices had been kept answerable to the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he petitioner submitted that respondent No.3 passed the impugned order dated 8.4.2015, Annexure P-2, without considering the material on record and giving full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand supported the impugned order. 6. A perusal of the impugned order shows that it has been passed by respondent No.3 without considering the overall material on record including the reply to the show cause notice submitted by the petitioner. No .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

quasi judicial or judicial, had laid down as under:- 51. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds: a. In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. b. A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. c. Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. d .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ns facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts. h. The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. i. Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve on .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| 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