9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 450X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pecified time frame. Iii. To direct the second respondent to issue a rectified SVLDRS-3 Form in accordance with the disposal of Ext.P2 rectification petition. 2. In support of the aforementioned prayer, it is averred that the petitioner being the proprietor of M/s Kalidasa International was served with an order dated 13.8.2019 whereby the confirmation of an amount of Rs. 5,88,76,999/- on the assessee as service tax on advertising services for the period July 2012 to June 2017 under Section 73(2) and interest under Section 75 and the penalty of Rs. 4,52,68,588/- under Section 78 and another penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 has been imposed. The question raised in this petition is "whether aggrieved person ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the same issued SVLDRS-3 which calculates the amount without rectification as evidenced from Ext.P4. Petitioner sought for personal hearing vide Ext.P5 and the same has been rejected vide impugned communication dated 5.3.2020, Ext.P6. He submits that in fact the petitioner is not liable to pay any service tax on the invoices referred in the order Ext.P1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the omission on the part of the adjudicating authority in not considering judgment of CESTAT and High Courts where it has been categorically held that Service tax cannot be charged separately on pretext that services are not taxable. Petitioner had a bonafide belief that Service tax was not liable to be paid by them for the activity of transferring the rig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g heard to the declarant, if he so desires, before issuing the statement indicating the amount payable by the declarant: 6. On perusal of the aforementioned provisions, it is deciphered that the amount estimated by the designated committee must exceed the amount declared by the declarant. However on comparison of Exts.P1 and P3 the amount confirmed in the order in original Ext.P1, is Rs. 5,88,76,999/- whereas in the scheme the petitioner had claimed the liability of Rs. 4,60,68,715/-. Thus it was less than the amount as estimated by the designated committee. It is also a matter of record that though the petitioner could have availed the scheme, the rectification petition, against Ext.P1, pending consideration could not have arrived at a fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
