TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 1096X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, J For the Petitioner : Mr. Nirmal Kumar Chowdhury, Mr. Subhasis Bandopadhyay, Mr. Nilotpal Chowdhury, Mr. Prabir Bera For the Respondent : Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Banerjee, Mr. Tapan Bhanja ORDER Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on record. Burdwan Municipality, the petitioner no.1, allowed the M/s. Reliance Jio Infocom Limited (hereinafter referred to as Jio) to lay down optical fibre cables on various places within the limits of the said Municipality, subject to payment of an aggregate sum of ₹ 1,05,52,400/- towards reimbursement of the damage of the municipal roads due to such work. The work was executed by Jio during the financial year 2013-14 and 2014-15. On the impression that no service t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... service tax payable for the transaction in question with Reliance Jio. The petitioner no.1 says that though the petitioner is not liable to pay service tax but has paid a sum of ₹ 18,99,432/- on account thereof, yet the service tax authorities are again demanding a sum of ₹ 13,04,277/-. The petitioner no.1 also says that the agony of the petitioner was further increased by an order dated 27th March, 2019 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Burdwan Division, upholding the demand allowing, recovery of interest on the demand and imposing penalty of ₹ 10,000/- in terms of section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The petitioner thereafter made several representations to the GST Authorities but all are in vain. On the contra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n filed by the petitioner. It is, therefor, submitted on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner should not be allowed to ventilate its grievance as against the order dated 27th March, 2019, by way of the instant writ petition when the petitioner has not preferred an appeal though the order is appellable. Considering the respective submissions and the materials on record, I find that there is no scope for passing any interim order, as prayed for, in the writ petition as the same will amount to passing of final order in the writ petition. An issue, however, remains to be adjudicated as to whether the petitioner is liable to pay service tax in view of the notification and the fate of ₹ 18,90,432/- paid by the petitioner as GST. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
