9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 766 - HC - Service TaxLevy of service tax - works contract services - taxable services or not - It is the case of the petitioner that the work carried out by the petitioner was not liable to tax during the period in dispute as the work involved works contract and was liable to service tax for the first time with effect from 01.07.2007 with the insertion of Section 65(105) (zzza) of the Finance Act, 1994 - HELD THAT - The Tribunal, being the final fact finding authority, will determine the question of facts and arrive at a conclusion on law. In case the petitioner is aggrieved by any such order of the Tribunal, the petitioner has an alternate remedy before the High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Central Excise Act, 1944. The authorities under the Acts overburdened with litigation and it may not be fair to hold that the orders passed long after issuance of Show Cause Notice would be in Violation of Principles of Natural Justice. Nothing precluded the petitioner from knocking the doors of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Mandamus to direct the respondents to complete the assessment or bring a closure to the issue - Petition dismissed.
Issues:
Challenge to impugned Order-in-Appeal, Violation of Principles of Natural Justice, Alternate Remedy before Tribunal, Taxable service under different sections of Finance Act, 1994. Impugned Order-in-Appeal Challenge: The petitioner filed a writ petition against Order-in-Appeal Nos.107-109 of 2021, challenging the partial dropping or allowance of the appeal against Order-in-Original Nos.9-12 of 2021. The original proceeding stemmed from a Show Cause Notice dated 06.10.2010 and subsequent Statement of Demand under the Finance Act, 1994. The petitioner contested the demand confirmed in the Show Cause Notice, arguing that the adjudication occurred long after the issuance of the notice, violating Principles of Natural Justice. The petitioner claimed the demand was not liable as the work involved a "works contract" and was taxable only from 01.07.2007 under a specific section of the Act. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: The petitioner contended that the delay in adjudication post the Show Cause Notice issuance infringed on Principles of Natural Justice. However, the court emphasized that the petitioner had an alternative statutory appeal before the Tribunal, which was a more appropriate remedy than resorting to Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court highlighted that the Tribunal was the final fact-finding authority to resolve questions of fact and law, emphasizing the need for the petitioner to pursue remedies through the Tribunal and higher courts under the Finance Act, 1994, and Central Excise Act, 1944. Taxable Service Classification: The issue revolved around whether the petitioner rendered taxable service under the proposed section in the Show Cause Notice or a different section as confirmed in subsequent demands. The court determined this as a question of fact to be resolved by the Tribunal, emphasizing the Tribunal's role as the final authority for factual determinations and legal conclusions. The court underscored that the Tribunal's decision could be further challenged in higher courts under the relevant Acts. Conclusion: The court dismissed the writ petition, stressing that the petitioner had not exhausted the available statutory remedies before the Tribunal. The court highlighted the importance of utilizing the established legal avenues for redressal and discouraged the delay in seeking resolution through appropriate channels. The dismissal was made without costs, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed, indicating the finality of the court's decision.
|
