GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (6) TMI 725 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2016 (6) TMI 725 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - 2016 (340) E.L.T. 73 (Bom.) , 2016 (44) S.T.R. 587 (Bom.) , [2016] 95 VST 317 (Bom) - 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 afor .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

roceeding to pass the final order. It is not the contention of the respondents that the petitioner have been deliberately delaying 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. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed 23.11.2015 passed by the respondent no.4 thereby inter alia confirming the demand of ₹ 1,86,73,790/- under Section 73(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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r pointed out that the respondent no.4 while refusing such request also did not grant any adjournment but proceeded to adjudicate 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 petit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

es the petitioner have filed the said application to keep the matter in abeyance as similar issues are raised before the Apex 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

appearing for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 has supported the impugned order. The learned counsel further pointed out that the 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 appli .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

merits deserve no consideration. 7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the learned 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 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

tes namely 21st and 22nd September, 2015. The fact that there was some proceedings pending before the Apex Court filed by the 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 pr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version