TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 1133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioner. It was also said that the total amount outstanding was Rs. 1,05,73,062/- - petitioner neither made use of the statutory remedy of appeal within the time prescribed as per Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act 1994 nor did he reply to the notice issued in Ext .P7 and after the expiry of the maximum period of appeal of three months, the petitioner approached this Court by filing this writ petition. This Court does not exercise the appellate jurisdiction against the Order-in-Original. It also cannot be said that the Order-in-Original is without jurisdiction or that there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice. Considering the fact that the petitioner failed to exercise the right of appeal within the limitation pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner was put to notice regarding the data made available by the CBDT in respect of his income, and the petitioner was directed to submit month-wise details of services provided by the petitioner for the Financial Years from 2016-17 to 2017-18 (up to June 2017), including exemption/ abatement notices availed and month-wise details of payments received for the services provided by the petitioner. The petitioner was also directed to furnish the balance sheet, Profit and Loss Account, and Income Tax returns along with Annexures and 26AS for the Financial Years 2016-17 and 2017-18. The petitioner, thereafter, was issued a show cause notice in Ext. P4 dated 12.04.2021 to show cause as to why the services rendered by the petitioner in res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me Tax Department. It is said that as the Income Tax Department had accepted returns and the treatment given to the receipts as business income, the stand of the Department that the amount received by the petitioner, which is business income, is liable to be taxed as service tax, would not hold good. The petitioner also made other submissions. 4. The reply of the petitioner was considered. The petitioner was also afforded an opportunity for hearing by the Assistant Commissioner, the 2nd respondent. Vide impugned order (Ext.P6), the demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 33,96,785/- together with Swacch Bharat Cess and Krishi Kalyan Cess totalling Rs. 36,19,736/- has been confirmed in respect of the alleged services rendered by the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid that the total amount outstanding was Rs. 1,05,73,062/-. 7. The petitioner neither made use of the statutory remedy of appeal within the time prescribed as per Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act 1994 nor did he reply to the notice issued in Ext .P7 and after the expiry of the maximum period of appeal of three months, the petitioner approached this Court by filing this writ petition. 7.1 This Court does not exercise the appellate jurisdiction against the Order-in-Original. It also cannot be said that the Order-in-Original is without jurisdiction or that there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice. Considering the fact that the petitioner failed to exercise the right of appeal within the limitation period prescribe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
