9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is also more or less similar. 2. Both the petitioners are companies engaged in the business of Construction and Development of Integrated Townships. Both petitioners have registered with the Service Tax Department, one under the head 'construction of residential complex' and the other under the head 'works contract service'. 3. Show cause notices had been issued in the case of the petitioner in WP.No.15652 of 2020 (hereinafter referred to as 'first petitioner') for the period October 2009 to September 2013 and in the case of the petitioner in WP.No.19567 of 2020 (hereinafter referred to as 'second petitioner') for the period August 2008 to July 2013, calling upon them to respond as to why various proposals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suance of show cause notices and passing of the impugned orders. Mrs.Radhika Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners would point out that in both cases, personal hearings have been conducted in the years 2015 and 2016/2017 and orders have been passed a couple of years thereafter. 8. She relies on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Rai @ Gora Rai v. State of U.P. (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 448), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in the context of the proper practice and procedure to be adopted by the Courts, held that if a judgment is not delivered within six months after reserving the same, it should be assigned to another Bench for fresh hearing and not to the same Bench. 9. In the present case, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication under service tax law. 13. That argument was repelled by the Bench stating that even if there was no time period prescribed under Statute, the statutory authority must exercise discretion in matters of adjudication within a reasonable period, in the absence of which the proceedings will be vitiated. In that context, they have referred to several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the decisions of the High Courts including two decisions of this Court and the decisions are (i) State of Punjab v. Bhatinda District Coop. Milk P Union Ltd., [(2007) 11 SC 363, (ii) S.B.Gurbaksh Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (1976 (37) STC 425), (iii) Government of India v. The Citedal Fine Pharmaceuticals, Madras (AIR 1989 SC 1771 and (iv) J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Government of India aims to reduce Government litigation so that Government ceases to be a compulsive litigant. The purpose underlying this Policy is to ensure that valuable time of the Courts is spent in resolving pending cases and in bringing down the average pending time in the Courts. To achieve this, the Government should become an 'efficient' and 'responsible' litigant. 2. In order to achieve the goals envisaged in the NLP, it is emphasised that:- (i) SCNs should be issued after thorough examination and keeping in mind that grounds given in the SCNs are cogent, sustainable and backed by legal provisions and pronouncements. (ii) Need to pass quality adjudicating orders, which can stand legal scrutiny of the Appellate Authority/Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve been re-assigned to the Commissioner who has passed the impugned orders. Thus, in addition to his regular charge as Commissioner, GST Central Excise, Chennai Outer Commissionerate, he was also given the responsibility of dealing with 102 show cause notices relating to Chennai North/South Commissionerates of GST and Central Excise. 18. That apart, the onset of GST had itself brought with it, several difficulties including integration with technology and streamlining of processes, and hence all officers were required to address the difficulties on a real-time basis. This is what had led to the delay in adjudication. They would point out that this was not a case where the delay had been either wanton or wilfull, but the officer had been tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessing authority has compared the value of land as adopted under the construction agreement and that, as adopted in the registered sale deeds. In the reply filed, the submission of the petitioners is legalistic, to state that land value could not be presumed to be suppressed receipts from construction services. While theoretically, the petitioner may be right, it is the case of the assessing officer that the veil is to be lifted and the true receipts from the constructions are to be determined. The response of the assessee does not reveal any satisfactory explanation in regard to the difference in land cost vis-a-vis the construction agreement and sale deeds. 24. As far as the case of the second petitioner is concerned, its case is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
