TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 941X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 29.09.2022. Even after communication of the order dated 21.09.2022 via email on 18.10.2022, the respondent No.3 did not provide the third opportunity to the petitioner in an illegal, arbitrary and high handed manner - the impugned order dated 16.11.2022 passed by the respondent No.3, apart from being illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction, is apparently perverse and fraught with patent illegality since it was conclusively decided by the respondent No.2 after consulting the relevant laws that the services rendered by the petitioner during the financial year 2016-17 are exempted from the purview of Service Tax, particularly in view of the Clause-14(a) of the Central Government s Mega Exemption Notification No.25/2012 dated 20.06.2012. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Majumder, learned Deputy SGI, appearing for the respondent-Union of India. [2] This present petition has been filed under Article-226 read with Article-215of the Constitution of India praying for adjudicating the legality and validity of the order dated 25.03.2022 issued by the respondent No.5 and order dated 16.11.2022 issued by the respondent No.3 as well as the entire proceeding contained therein. Also violation of the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 as well as the Rules made thereunder and the relevant circular under No.1053/02/2017-CX dated 10.03.2017 and further for non-consideration of the provisions contained in Clause-14 of the Mega Exemption notification No.25/2012 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 22 issued by the Principal Commissioner at Guwahati, the respondent No.3 acted beyond his jurisdiction and issued the palpable illegal order dated 16.11.2022, thereby, causing grave injustice to the petitioner. Hence, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner. [6] Mr. S. S. Deb, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. A. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had never executed any contractual works in the State of Tripura, rendering himself liable to be assessed under service tax etc. within the State of Tripura, the respondent No.5 did not have any jurisdiction to issue the summons dated 07.03.2022 and the petitioner bona fide believing that the same was issued under a mis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g or installation of original works pertaining to monoral or metro, where contracts were entered into before 1st march, 2016, on which appropriate stamp duty, was paid, shall remain exempt. Substituted vide Notification 9/2016-Service Tax with effect from 1 March, 2016.... [9] The petitioner was served with a notice dated 25.02.2022 by the respondent No.4 regarding service tax returns for the Financial Year-2016-17 and thereafter, a demand cum show cause notice dated 19.04.2022 was issued by the Principal Commissioner, CGST Central Excise Commissionerate, Guwahati i.e. the respondent No.2 herein calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why service tax amounting to Rs.2,70,27,400.50/- only for the period of Financial Year 2016- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the Financial Year 2016-17 comes under the exempted servicers granted by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) through the aforementioned Mega Exemption Notification No.25/2012. The respondent No.2 passed the final order on 21.09.2022 holding that on scrutiny of the records available it is found that the petitioner was basically providing work contract job to the N.F. Railways as a main contractor and for the financial year 2016-17, it had executed contract work for the value of Rs.18,01,82,670/- to the N.F. Railway which is exempted under the Mega Exemption Notification No.25/2012 dated 20.06.2012. [13] Be it stated herein that as per Clause-14.3 of the Circular under No.1053/02/2017-CX dated 10.03.2017 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st that any work was executed by the petitioner within the State of Tripura i.e. within the territorial jurisdiction of the respondent No.3. [16] In view of the facts and circumstances narrated hereinabove, the impugned demand stands set aside since, a non-speaking order has been passed without dealing with regard to the exemption clauses and the notification issued thereunder. The respondents shall consider the explanation in the light of the exemption notification No.25/2012 and then pass a speaking order after giving an opportunity of personal hearing. It is further made clear that till a decision is taken, no adverse action shall be initiated against the petitioner. [17] It is represented by the learned senior counsel appearing fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
