9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 1523 - HC - Service TaxMaintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Levy of service tax in terms of proviso to Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 besides levy of interest and penalty - HELD THAT - The petitioner should avail the remedy of appeal as provided under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. If the appeal is preferred by the petitioner within thirty days from today, the same shall be considered by the appellate authority in accordance with law - petition disposed off.
Issues:
Challenge to legality and validity of order-in-original dated 30.12.2021 for levying service tax for the periods 2014-15 and 2015-16 under proviso to Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Analysis: The petitioner challenged the legality and validity of the order-in-original dated 30.12.2021, which imposed a service tax of Rs. 13,92,489.00 for the periods 2014-15 and 2015-16. The challenge was based on the grounds that the impugned order was beyond the limitation period. The court, after considering the provisions of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, determined that the matter required adjudication to ascertain if the order was indeed beyond limitation. Consequently, the court suggested that the petitioner should pursue the remedy of appeal available under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, along with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The court emphasized that the petitioner should opt for the appeal process within thirty days from the date of the judgment. It was stated that if the appeal is lodged within the specified timeframe, the appellate authority would review the case in accordance with the law. The court disposed of the Writ Petition with the observation that the petitioner should utilize the avenue of appeal to address the concerns raised regarding the order-in-original. No costs were imposed on the petitioner, and any related miscellaneous petitions were deemed closed as a consequence of the judgment.
|
