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 →

M/s. Tyresoles India Pvt. Ltd., Versus The Union of India, & Others

2016 (6) TMI 725 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Validity of ex-parte order - principles of natural justice - Confirmation of service tax with levy of penalty u/s at the rate of 1% of the demanded service tax on the said amount which was not paid till the date of payment of service tax subject to 50% of the service tax of the said amount - A further penalty of ₹ 10,000/- was also imposed for failure to pay the aforesaid determined amount. - Held that:- The fact that there was some proceedings pending before the Apex Court filed by 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

aying the adjudication of the alleged claim put forward by the respondents. - Matter restored before the adjudicating authority subject to payment of costs of ₹ 15,000/- WRIT PETITION NO. 233 OF 2016 - Dated:- 13-6-2016 - F. M. REIS & NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ. For the Appellant: Mr. Prashil Arolkar, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. C. A. Ferreira, Advocate. 3 and 4. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per F. M. Reis, J) Heard Mr. P. Arolkar, learne .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

3(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 and imposing a penalty at the rate of 1% of the demanded service tax on the said amount which was not paid till the date of payment of service tax subject to 50% of the service tax of the said amount of ₹ 1,86,73,790/-. A further penalty of ₹ 10,000/- was also imposed for failure to pay the aforesaid determined amount. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order passed by the respondent no.4 essentially .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cate the matter and pass the impugned order. The learned counsel further pointed out that even in terms of the Rules, the petitioner otherwise was entitled for three adjournments and according to him, in the present case on the first date of hearing itself when the matter was posted for final hearing, the respondent no.4 without giving any adequate opportunity to the petitioner of a personal hearing proceeded to pass the impugned order. The learned counsel further pointed out that even on merits .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Court. The learned counsel further pointed out that the impugned order passed by the respondent no.4 is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner have not been given an adequate opportunity of being heard which resulted in grave prejudice to the petitioner. The learned counsel further pointed out that the petitioner is not liable to pay any amount to the respondents on the alleged claim and consequently, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

petitioner have an alternate remedy to challenge the impugned order and on this ground alone the petition deserves to be rejected. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner have forfeited their right of personal hearing as they have failed to remain present at the time of the final hearing nor sought an adjournment but however, only filed a misconceived application to keep the proceedings in abeyance. The learned counsel thereafter has taken us through the impugned order as well as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

arned counsel and with their assistance we have also gone through the records. 8. We do not propose to decide on merits the rival contentions put forward by the learned counsel. But however, we are only examining the matter as to whether there is a violation of the principles of natural justice while passing the impugned order. It may not be necessary to note that merely because there is an alternate remedy, it does not preclude this Court to exercise jurisdiction under Articles 226 a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

petitioner is also not in dispute. In such circumstances, we find that in case the respondent no.4 felt it expedient to proceed to adjudicate the demand raised by the respondents by rejecting the request of the petitioner to keep the matter in abeyance, it would be appropriate and in the interest of justice to give an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard before proceeding to pass the final order. It is not the contention of the respondents that the petitioner have been deliberately dela .....

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