2013 (10) TMI 135 - HC - Service Tax

Transfer of Pending Assessments to Concerned Jurisdictional Office Held that - The grievance of the petitioner was that the petitioner had opted out of LTU scheme and the request of the petitioner to transfer the pending assessment and other proceedings has not been considered - In similar circumstances, in many cases, pending assessment/proceedings have been transferred - In response to the request of the petitioner to furnish information under the Right to Information Act, the respondents have furnished information as per Annexures- L , N and Q - They show that in respect of some Companies who have opted out of LTU scheme, pending assessments/proceedings have been transferred from LTU jurisdiction to the normal jurisdiction. Insofar petitioner was concerned, the request was not considered for the reason that the assessment for the year 2009-10 was not completed and the petitioner had approached the court - Keeping in view, Annexures L N and Q which show that pending assessment/proceedings have been transferred from LTU jurisdiction to the normal jurisdiction, it was proper to direct the first respondent to consider the request of the petitioner in the light of Annexures - L , N and Q - the first respondent was directed to consider the request of the petitioner vide Annexure E , keeping in view the communications at Annexures - L , N and Q and section 127 of the Income Tax Act.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner's request to exit LTU Scheme and transfer pending proceedings under various tax acts to new jurisdiction.

Analysis:
The petitioner, engaged in computer hardware installation and software development, sought to exit the LTU Scheme from April 1, 2013, and transfer pending proceedings under tax acts to a new jurisdiction. Despite the petitioner's consent to LTU scheme and subsequent request to opt out, the authorities kept the request in abeyance citing incomplete assessment for 2009-2010. The petitioner approached the court seeking direction for the transfer of pending assessments. The authorities transferred proceedings of other companies opting out of LTU, but not for the petitioner due to the pending assessment issue.

The petitioner's counsel argued that similar cases saw the transfer of pending assessments upon opting out of LTU, highlighting the disparity in treatment. The respondents contended that the pending assessment for 2009-2010 justified their decision not to transfer the proceedings. They emphasized the need for a case-by-case examination before transferring proceedings.

The court considered the submissions and noted that other companies had their pending assessments transferred upon opting out of LTU, as evidenced by communications provided under the Right to Information Act. The court directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's request in line with the communications provided and relevant tax laws within three weeks, acknowledging the acceptance of the petitioner's application subject to the writ petition's outcome.