2008 (10) TMI 680

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. It is stated that the petitioner is a Registered Company. A technical knowhow agreement was entered into between the Petitioner-Company and a Canadian Company incorporated in the State of Tamil Nadu, under which the Canadian Company was to provide technical know-how and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ment, dated 3-8-1999 and the same was to be effective from the year 1997. However, there was no rendering of services by the Canadian Government [company] within the territory of India, attracting liability to Service Tax. Accordingly, no provision was made for the payment of service tax and it was well within the knowledge of the first and second respondents. However, by a letter, dated 5-12-2002 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hat no prior notice had been issued to the petitioner before the issuance of the impugned letter, dated 5-12-2002, by the second respondent. However, he had submitted that the respondents may be permitted to issue a notice to the petitioner, with regard to the demand for payment of service tax, in accordance with law. 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels for the petitio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X