9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been filed seeking following relief(s): "(i) For issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing/ setting aside the Orders-In-Original dated 14.06.2024 (Annexure P/8) passed by Respondent No. 6 for FY 2013-14 and 2014-15 whereby and whereunder the ex parte assessment order has been passed for the aforesaid period levying Service Tax amounting to Rs.30,35,207/- under Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Finance Act'), along with interest at applicable rate under section 75 of the Finance Act, 100% Penalty amounting to Rs.30,35,207/- under section 78 of Finance Act, Penalty of Rs.10,000/- under section 77(1) (c) of Finance Act, Penalty of Rs.10,000/- under section 77(2) in contravention of section 70 of Finance Act, 1994 r/w section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017 and late fee of Rs.2,900/- under section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 for the periods of FY 2013-14 and FY 2014-15; (ii) For issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing/ setting aside the Demand-Cum Show Cause Notice dated 10.05.2019 (Annexure P/3) passed by Respondent No. 7 for FY 2013-14 and 2014-15 whereby and whereunder assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... flated on the pretext that the petitioner has not filed the service tax returns at all; (viii) For holding that serving notices of demand-Cum Show Cause Notice dated 10.05.2019 had been replied to by the petitioner on 30.05.2019 and the same was acknowledged by the respondent, issuing Orders-In-Original dated 14.06.2024 (Annexure P/8) citing deficiencies in the reply of the petitioner after almost four and a half years, is not sustained in the eyes of law and fit to be declared null and void; (ix) For holding that the imposition of liability of tax, interest and penalty on Petitioner by the Respondent is illegal and void; (x) For issuance of an appropriate direction including a writ of mandamus preventing the respondents from taking any coercive steps against the petitioner including attachment of the account of the petitioner till final adjudication of the present writ application; and (xi) Pass any such other order/orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper on the facts and in the circumstances of the case." 2. It appears from the perusal of the records that the petitioner was served with a demand-cum-show cause notice (in short 'SCN') vide no.1764 dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uance of the SCN. It is submitted that the judgment of the learned Coordinate Bench was challenged in the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.54313/2024, however, same was not interfered with, taking into consideration the quantum of tax involved in the said case which was Rs.86 Lakh. 6. Learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in the case of M/s Power Spectrum Sarbidipur vs. The Union of India & Anr. (CWJC No.16772 of 2024) to submit that this Court has, after relying upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, taken a view that the time frame as mentioned under Section 73(4B) of the Act of 1994 cannot be extended for an inordinate period. It is submitted that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of the learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court as well as by the recent Judgment of this Court in the case of M/s Power Spectrum Sarbidipur (supra). 7. On record, there is a counter affidavit and a supplementary counter affidavit of the respondent authorities. 8. In the counter affidavit it is stated that the order in original has been passed by the respondent no.6 i.e. the Assistant Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has fallen for consideration. In Sunder System Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has quoted in paragraph '9' of it's judgment one paragraph from National Building Construction Co. Ltd Vs. Union of India reported in 2019 (20) G.S.T.L. 515 (Del.). The relevant paragraph from the said judgment is being reproduced hereunder:- "9. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of National Building Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India; 2019 (20) G.S.T.L. 515 (Del.) has held as under:- "20. Sub-section 4B to Section 73 of the Fin Act fixes the time or limitation period within which the Central Excise Officer has to adjudicate and decide the show cause notice. The time period fixed under Clause A or B is six months and one year respectively. Limitation period for passing of the adjudication order, described as Order-in-Original, starts from the date of notice under Sub-section 1 to Section 73 of the Fin Act. 17. In L.R. Sharma (supra), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has referred the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 2017 (352) E.L.T. 455 (Guj.) in respect of Section 11A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
