2021 (4) TMI 825 - HC - Service Tax

Attachment of petitioner's Bank Account - non-payment of service tax towards renting of immovable properties, inspite of more than one assessment order passed against the petitioner - HELD THAT - In the counter affidavit, the adjudicating authority has stated that the petitioner is liable to pay a total sum of ₹ 24,44,383/- towards service tax liability along with appropriate interest and penalty. Since the petitioner is a local body, certainly, relief can be granted in respect of the penalty portion. But then, the petitioner has to necessarily clear the service tax liability together with interest. The consequential recovery action cannot be interfered with - It is for the petitioner to move the adjudicating authority for appropriate relief - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Liability of a local body to pay service tax for renting immovable properties.
2. Impugned order of attachment leading to freezing of petitioner's bank account.
3. Relief sought by the petitioner regarding penalty and service tax liability.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a local body, was found liable to pay service tax for renting immovable properties. Multiple assessment orders were passed against the petitioner, and due to non-payment, an order of attachment was issued, resulting in the freezing of the petitioner's bank account.

2. The adjudicating authority stated that the petitioner owed a total of &8377;24,44,383 towards service tax liability, interest, and penalty. While relief could be granted concerning the penalty, the petitioner was directed to clear the service tax liability along with interest. The court emphasized that if the primary orders were not challenged, interference with the recovery action was not possible, and the petitioner should seek relief from the adjudicating authority.

3. The petitioner proposed to pay &8377;1,00,000 per month to clear the liabilities. The court allowed the petitioner to make this request to the adjudicating authority, which would decide on the matter. The petitioner was also given the option to challenge the primary assessment order, with assurance of relief regarding the penalty portion.

4. Ultimately, the writ petition was dismissed, with no costs imposed. The petitioner was advised to address the adjudicating authority for relief and challenge the primary assessment order if necessary. The judgment concluded by closing the connected miscellaneous petitions.