TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... done. Since the remand, which was ordered by this Court for the period from July 2012 to September, 2013 is yet to attain finality and for the subsequent period, the demand has been dropped by a speaking order, the impugned issue requires re-consideration. Matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration. - W.P.No.21630 of 2017 & W.M.P.No.22643 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 11-12-2017 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioner : M/s.D.Naveena For the Respondents : Mr.A.P.Srinivas, Senior Standing Counsel ORDER Heard M/s.D.Naveena, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2.In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. The respondent in the impugned order referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sant Lal Gupta vs. Modern Co-op. Group Housing Society [2010 (262) ELT 6 SC]. 5.After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perusing the materials placed on record, in my view, the power under Section 74 of Finance Act to rectify a mistake cannot be put under a straight jacket formula and each case has to be tested on its own facts. What is a mistake apparent from the record will have to be decided based on the facts which are placed before the concerned authority. The specific case of the petitioner in the reply to the show ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Finance Act, after granting an opportunity of personal hearing. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. 4.On remand, the respondent has issued a show cause notice and fixed the personal hearing on 26.05.2017. However, before orders could be passed, the learned Commissioner has been transferred and the new Commissioner is yet to take charge. In the meantime, for the earlier period, the present writ petitions are entertained. The grounds raised by the petitioner in the earlier round of litigation is identical to the grounds raised herein and one more additional point is with regard to retrospective effect of Finance Act, 2017. This issue has been specifically canvassed in this writ petition. So far as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in view of the fact that the taxable value in terms of Rule 2A(ii) of the Valuation Rules, 2006 has been brought down to 25%, subject to the condition mentioned in the said Rules. In view of this position, there is no differential service Tax liability payable by the service provider. 5.In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the issue, which is covered in the present writ petition viz., the demand of service tax for the period from 01.04.2010 to 30.06.2012, also requires to be re-done. Since the remand, which was ordered by this Court for the period from July 2012 to September, 2013 is yet to attain finality and for the subsequent period, the demand has been dropped by a speaking order, the impugned issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
