2012 (11) TMI 925 - HC - Service Tax

Remedy u/s 86 of Finance Act - Writ petition against the Order in original passed by the Commissioner - It has been stated that, in respect of the business auxiliary services, business support services, the members of club or association services, no service had been rendered in respect of the said accounts. However, a substantial amount of credit, on account of Central Value Added Tax, is available for set off against the liability said to be arising in respect of the said services. Held that - An appellate remedy is available to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order passed by the third respondent. It would be open to the petitioner to raise all the grounds available to it, as per law, including the grounds raised in the present writ petition. - Petition dismissed, as infructuous. No costs.

Summary

Issues:
1. Service tax liability and demand notice based on alleged non-payment.
2. Discrepancies in tax computation and balance sheet figures.
3. Allegations of passing assessment order without considering detailed submissions.
4. Failure to produce relevant documents to substantiate claims.
5. Availability of appellate remedy under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the service tax liability issue where the petitioner, a company running a Multiplex, received a notice alleging non-payment of service tax. The notice proposed to tax income earned from various services. The petitioner disputed the tax computation based on balance sheet figures, claiming actual receipts were lower.

2. Discrepancies in tax calculation were highlighted, with the petitioner asserting no services were rendered for certain accounts. The petitioner also claimed credit for Central Value Added Tax against the alleged liability. The judgment notes the petitioner's detailed submissions and reliance on records to support its claims.

3. The judgment criticizes the assessment order passed without considering the petitioner's detailed reply and violating a court order. The order confirmed a substantial service tax liability, appropriated payments made by the petitioner, and imposed penalties and interest under the Finance Act, 1994.

4. The issue of failure to produce relevant documents to substantiate claims is discussed, with the petitioner requesting additional time to collect necessary details. The respondent passed the order without considering the additional information submitted by the petitioner, leading to a challenge of the order's legality.

5. The judgment emphasizes the availability of an appellate remedy under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994, allowing the petitioner to challenge the impugned order. The court dismisses the writ petition, directing the petitioner to file an appeal within four weeks. The dismissal of one writ petition due to the availability of an appellate remedy renders another petition infructuous.

This comprehensive analysis covers the issues of service tax liability, discrepancies in tax computation, assessment order validity, failure to produce documents, and the availability of an appellate remedy under the Finance Act, 1994.