TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 977X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... value of return and that in return the petitioners had declared values pertaining to their service tax liability on reverse charge basis only; gave its justification why the petitioners were liable to pay service tax despite the two exemption notifications referred to by the petitioners. Moreover, although the respondent no. 2 took note of the copies of audited financial statement for financial year 2016-17 and ST-3 return filed for the period of April, 2016 to September, 2016 and October, 2016 to March, 2017 it was also observed to the effect that the petitioners had not responded to the communications made before issuing the show-cause notice to ascertain their tax liability. Accordingly, it was held that failure to disclose position in conformity with the position in balance sheet amounted to suppression of correct taxable value and accordingly, the tax liability was confirmed. Thus, in the opinion of the Court, all the points urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners before us has been dealt with by the respondent no. 2 in the impugned order. Therefore, in the considered opinion of the Court, the impugned order-in-appeal may be erroneous, but it cannot be said that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi, persons who are exempted need not file ST-3 return and therefore, it is claimed that the exempted revenue receipts of Rs .23,82,02,812/- for the said financial year 2016-17 was not reported in the service tax return, while disclosing other items. 4. A show-cause notice dated 26.10.2021 was issued upon the petitioner no. 1 by the respondent no. 2, proposing to initiate proceedings for recovery of service tax of Rs .23,82,02,812/-, which was disclosed in their income tax returns for financial year 2016-17. The respondent no. 2 had also proposed to invoke extended period of limitation as per proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Tax Act, 1994, on the ground of suppression of facts and non-filing of return. In reply dated 02.11.2021 filed by the petitioners, it was stated that vide notification no. 30/2011-S.T., w.e.f. 01.05.2011, health care services was exempt from service tax and after introduction of negative list regime, vide notification no. 25/2011-S.T., the levy of service tax was exempt on health care services rendered by clinical establishment and it was claimed that the petitioner no. 1 was not liable to pay s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d it was submitted that the writ petition be dismissed by relegating the petitioners to avail the alternative and efficacious remedy available to the petitioners under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 before the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, East Regional Bench, Kolkata. 8. On the issue of alternative remedy, we may profitably refer to the case of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai, (1998) 8 SCC 1, where it was held that an alternative remedy is not a bar to the exercise of the writ jurisdiction of the High Court (i) if the writ petition is filed for enforcement of fundamental rights; (ii) where there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (iii) where the order or the proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; (iv) or when the vires of an Act is challenged. None of the herein before referred situations exist in this case. 9. In the case of Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 2021 SC 2114: 2021 STPL 4310 SC, the Supreme Court of India had observed in connection with availability of alternative remedy as follows:- 27. The principles of law whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nter alia, had dealt with the issue of limitation; discussed the effect of non-disclosure of correct taxable value of return and that in return the petitioners had declared values pertaining to their service tax liability on reverse charge basis only; gave its justification why the petitioners were liable to pay service tax despite the two exemption notifications referred to by the petitioners. Moreover, although the respondent no. 2 took note of the copies of audited financial statement for financial year 2016-17 and ST-3 return filed for the period of April, 2016 to September, 2016 and October, 2016 to March, 2017 it was also observed to the effect that the petitioners had not responded to the communications made before issuing the show-cause notice to ascertain their tax liability. Accordingly, it was held that failure to disclose position in conformity with the position in balance sheet amounted to suppression of correct taxable value and accordingly, the tax liability was confirmed as already indicated herein before. 11. Thus, in the opinion of the Court, all the points urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners before us has been dealt with by the respondent no. 2 in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
