9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (2) TMI 73 - HC - Service TaxChallenging to order of the Comm(A) - appellate authority has held that the petitioner should furnish full details to the adjudicating authority so as to enable the adjudicating the authority to quantify the service tax liability - if the petitioner submits the requisite details before the ad. authority within a period of 3 weeks from today, the appeal which was pending before the Comm (A), shall stand restored. The petitioner will be at liberty to move afresh the stay application thereafter.
Issues: Challenge to order of appellate authority regarding service tax liability details.
Analysis: The High Court of Bombay, in this judgment, addressed the challenge brought by the petitioner against the order of the appellate authority dated 8/11/2005. The appellate authority had directed the petitioner to provide full details to the adjudicating authority to quantify the service tax liability. The court noted that the petitioner should have furnished all tax liability details from 1st July, 1997, to enable the adjudicating authority to determine the service tax liability accurately. The petitioner, through their counsel, agreed to provide all necessary particulars and details regarding the service tax liability from 1st July, 1997, to the adjudicating authority within three weeks from the date of the judgment. It was emphasized that upon submission of these details, the adjudicating authority would be able to quantify the service tax liability accurately. The petitioner was granted the liberty to file a fresh stay application before the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise-III, Pune, once the service tax liability was quantified by the adjudicating authority. The court clarified that if the petitioner submitted the required details within the stipulated three-week period, the appeal that was pending before the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise-III, Pune, would be reinstated. Following the submission of details, the petitioner would have the freedom to file a fresh stay application. Ultimately, the petition was disposed of, and the rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.
|
