9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 925X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n stated that the petitioner is a company registered under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner is engaged in the business of running a Multiplex. It is also engaged in certain other activities, which are liable to tax, under the provisions of the Tamilnadu Entertainments Tax Act, 1939. The Multiplex run by the petitioner has a number of outlets, wherein third parties are engaged in the sale of food and bewerage items and other goods, on a revenue sharing basis. 4. It has been further stated that the petitioner has been filing regular returns of income, in terms of the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994, and the Service Tax Rules. While so, the petitioner had received a notice, dated 20.10.2010, from the office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... membership of club and association and mandap keeper services are less than the figures set out in the balance sheet of the petitioner. 6. It has been further stated that, in respect of the business auxiliary services, business support services, the members of club or association services, no service had been rendered in respect of the said accounts. However, a substantial amount of credit, on account of Central Value Added Tax, is available for set off against the liability said to be arising in respect of the said services. 7. It has been further stated that the petitioner had submitted a detailed reply, relying on various records, to substantiate the claims made on behalf of the petitioner, including the instructions issued by the Cen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd to the demand of service tax, under the head business auxiliary services and therefore, the petitioner had requested for further time to be granted, by the third respondent, to file the said reply. However, the third respondent had stated in the impugned order, dated 27.3.2012, that the assessee had been requested to submit additional documents, from its clients, to substantiate the claim of non-realisation. Despite further time having been granted the assessee had failed to produce the relevant supporting documents to substantiate its claim that the other income earned are not taxable. Thus, it is clear that the third respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 27.3.2012, without going into the additional information furnished by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er stated that an appellate remedy is available to the petitioner against the impugned order of the third respondent, dated 27.3.2012, under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994. Further, it would be open to the petitioner to file additional documents, if any, at the appellate stage to substantiate the claims made on behalf of the petitioner. Therefore, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. 11. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of the records available, it is noted that an appellate remedy is available to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order passed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
