9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1451X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Form VCES-1 is rejected, has filed the present writ petition. 2. Mr.M. K.Kabir , learned senior counsel for the petitioner heavily contended that the petitioner company has been running the hotel business since 1988 by providing service of accommodation, restaurant and rental for their customers. In the course of business, they are regular in paying the taxes including service tax etc. The petitioner company has also registered with the Central Excise department for paying the service tax under the head of accommodation service and restaurant service and thereupon paying the taxes regularly without any complaint. While so, an audit was conducted on 23.2.2013 and 25.2.2013 by the officers attached to the Additional Commissioner (Audit), S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent on 12.9.2013. But during the meeting, the petitioner was surprised to know that the fourth respondent had mistaken with the fact that the inspection for audit conducted on 23.2.2013 and 25.2.2013 in their premises under the category of accommodation service and restaurant service were not finalised on the cut-off date, namely, 1.3.2013, hence, on the sole ground that the audit was not completed, rejected their declaration, which is impermissible. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the rejection of the declaration of the petitioner made by the fourth respondent is against the circular dated 25.11.2013 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue clarifying the provisions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Salem under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. But the second respondent, without considering any of the legal issues, has wrongly disposed of the appeal on 17.1.2014, returning the same to the petitioner, treating it as disposed off . As against the said order, a further appeal was also preferred in Appeal No.ST/41647/2014 before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), the first respondent herein and the same was pending. However, in view of the filing of the present writ petition, the same was also withdrawn, therefore, the petitioner is not having any remedy except the intervention by this Court with the impugned order. Concluding his arguments, Mr.Kabir submitted tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laration, hence it was rejected. Adding further, he submitted that originally internal audit had visited the premises of the petitioner for the service tax audit and conducted audit inspection on 25.2.2013 and 28.2.2013. Since the petitioner/assessee had taken service tax registration certificate for accommodation service and restaurant service, they were paying service tax only for these services. However, during the course of audit, the audit authority noticed that the assessee was also providing renting of immovable property service, but had not taken any registration for this service nor had included this service in the service tax registration certificate taken earlier and equally not paid the service tax for the renting of immovable p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... more particularly, the provision of renting of immovable property service was unearthed during the course of audit and that the renting of immovable property service was also under the scrutiny of audit on the cut-off date i.e., 1.3.2013, no interference is called for with the impugned order, as the fourth respondent has passed the order in fine tune with Section 106(2) of the Finance Act, 2013, he pleaded. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The question that needs to be answered in the present case is whether the petitioner, who is an assessee for the service tax payable for the years 2010- 11, 2011-12 and 2013-13, is entitled to file the declaration on 21.6.2013 before the fourth respondent seeking to declare that the petitioner is entitled to ge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner came to be visited by the internal audit section of the respondents and an audit was conducted on 25.2.2013 and 28.2.2013. During the course of audit, the audit party noticed that the assessee was also providing renting of immovable property service, but had not taken registration for this service nor had included this service in the service tax registration certificate and also not paid the service tax for the renting of immovable property service. Hence the matter was under consideration of audit as on 1.3.2013, which is not yet being over. Therefore, as per Section 106(2) of the Finance Act, the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of the Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013 (VCES), hence the fou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
