Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + HC Service Tax - 2017 (6) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2017 (6) TMI 1332 - HC - Service Tax


Issues:
Assailing demand-cum-show cause notice dated 25.10.2016 regarding taxation of amount received from arbitration dispute settlement.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the show cause notice arguing that the amount received from an arbitration dispute settlement is compensation for breach of contract, not consideration for services rendered. They claimed it falls within the exempted category under Section 66E(e) and Section 65B(44). The petitioner contended that even if considered a service, it falls under the export of service category, exempt from tax. They also raised jurisdictional issues, asserting the writ petition's maintainability under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner cited judgments like Raza Textile Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer and Shrisht Dhawan v. M/s Shaw Brothers to support their case.

The respondent argued that the writ petition was premature as the petitioner had ample opportunity to defend their case before the assessing authority. They claimed that all petitioner's contentions could be addressed during the assessment process. The respondent objected to the timing of the writ petition, filed considerably after the show cause notice issuance.

The court noted the gap of seven months between the notice and the petition filing, highlighting the petitioner's non-cooperation during the audit process. Citing the Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Dunlop India Ltd. case, the court emphasized that Article 226 should not bypass statutory procedures, especially in revenue matters. Referring to legal precedents, including Union of India v. M/s Hindalco Industries and Union of India v. Vicco Laboratories, the court reiterated that interference at the show cause notice stage should be rare and only in exceptional circumstances.

Ultimately, the court declined to interfere with the show cause notice, emphasizing the availability of alternative remedies and the petitioner's delay in responding to the notice. The court held that the assessing authority should determine the taxability of the received amount based on evidence presented. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, concluding that it was improper to interfere with the notice at that stage.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates