9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 564X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... several occasions, we have found that the Revenue has not filed any affidavit controverting the factual and the legal position. 3 The facts lie in a very narrow compass. Since there are no contrary submissions made on affidavit, we dispose of this writ petition at this stage itself by a short order. 4 The respondents waives service. 5 The petitioners are inter-alia engaged in the business of providing "Auxiliary services". These are defined under Section 65(19) of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994. 6 The petitioners claim that they have been rendering these services in terms of the agreement. An illustrative agreement is annexed at Exhibit "B" to the petition. The call center services provided to various clients located in India resul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... October, 2013 for the period from April 2008 to December 2012. In terms of the Scheme, the petitioner voluntarily paid the entire sum of Rs. 47,33,476/-. 8 The petitioners still received a show-cause notice copy of which is annexed at Annexure - E. They filed a reply to the show-cause notice and raised several grounds. However, they contended that the application under the Scheme was made and in the light of the fact that such an application was made, they be allowed to proceed further and rely on it. 9 The petitioners also appeared for personal hearing on 1st September, 2015, before the third respondent and reiterated their submissions. 10 However, without taking any note of the same, the impugned order has been passed. 11 Apar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be a show-cause nor an order. 14 The petitioners also rely upon the paragraphs in the Scheme which according to them further clarify that it is not just a notice but an order of determination under Sections 72, 73 or 73A of Chapter which is a pre-requisite. In the instant case, there is no determination. The argument then is that if such determination is not there, then, no reliance could have been placed upon an observation during the course of a audit. 15 It is submitted by Mr. Raichandani appearing on behalf of the petitioners that at page 23 of the paper book in the impugned order, the first finding is that there is an application filed by the petitioners. Second finding is that there is an audit observation/objection for non-payment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r occasion parties like the petitioners have accepted their liability. 18 Reliance by the petitioner's advocate on the judgment of this Court in the case of Indokem Limited Vs. Union of India 2015(38) S.T.R. 464 (Bom.) and S2 Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2015(40) S.T.R. 10 (Bom.) which rely on these very paragraphs in the Scheme is thus opposite. Once we have found that in the present case, the conclusion reached and particularly at page 23 paragraphs (c) and (d) cannot be sustained on the touchstone of the wording of the paragraphs, then, the impugned order must be set aside. 19 The authorities need not be so anxious to protect the government revenue and reject the applications, as are made in the present case by closing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
