TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 505X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d would not have been confirmed. I m therefore convinced that the petitioner is entitled to the relief. Merely because renewal certificate for the earlier period was not produced earlier cannot mean that the order cannot be rectified under section 74 of the Finance Act, 1994. Ultimately, it is the duty of the respondent to pass a fair order and it is no part of the duty to deny the benefit which was legitimately available to the petitioner if materials were brought to the knowledge of the respondent though subsequently. The writ petition is allowed with liberty is given to the respondent to call upon the petitioner to pay the tax for services if any which are outside the purview of the Circular No.197/7/2016-ST dated 12.8.2016 issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the multimodal certificate issued by the Director-General of Shipping, Ministry of Shipping, Directorate General of Shipping. 6. The petitioner s consultant appears to have forwarded only the certificate of renewal effective from 25.6.2014. Under these circumstances, the demand was partly dropped and partly confirmed vide Order-in-Original No. CHN-SCTAX-001-Com-61-2016-17 dated 15.12.2016. By the said order, an equal amount of penalty and interest was demanded. 7. Under these circumstances, the petitioner filed an application for rectification of mistake and stated that the petitioner was holding a certificate of registration as a Multimodal Transport Operator all through the period and that there was a mistak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioner failed to submit the correct certificate in time. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that petitioner has an alternate remedy by way of an appeal against the impugned orders and therefore therefore the impugned orders are liable to be sustained. 11. I have considered the arguments of the petitioner and the respondent. The demand that was originally proposed in the show cause notice was for an amount of ? 15,83,93,310/-for the period commencing from January, 2013 to March, 2015. It was partially dropped on the strength of the certificate produced by the petitioner for the period commencing from 28.9 2014 and therefore the demand for the period prior to aforesaid date for an amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rlier cannot mean that the order cannot be rectified under section 74 of the Finance Act, 1994. Ultimately, it is the duty of the respondent to pass a fair order and it is no part of the duty to deny the benefit which was legitimately available to the petitioner if materials were brought to the knowledge of the respondent though subsequently. 15. Therefore, both the impugned orders i.e the 2nd mentioned order Order-in-Original No. CHN-SCTAX-COM-01-Com- -2017-18 dated 21.4.2017 in which the 1st mentioned Order-in-Original No. CHN-SCTAX-001-Com-61-2016-17 dated 15.12.2016 had merged are liable to be quashed to the extent they confirm the demand. 16. Therefore, while quashing the impugned orders and allowing the w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
