9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 273X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore the appellate authority and the same is pending consideration - If the appeal is disposed of on merits, entire claim of the petitioner as put forth before this court would be redressed. These are merits of matter, which can be looked into by the Appellate Authority and hence this writ petition is not maintainable in view of the effective alternate remedy available and the petitioner has also filed appeal - Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner on merits - Both parties are at liberty to raise all the points that are raised in the writ petition. - Writ Petition No.32176 of 2012 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 5-3-2013 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ook earnest efforts to collect service tax from the lessees/licencees. Since the new tax was extended to the service with retrospective effect and three years had lapsed from 01.06.2007, the petitioner found it very difficult to collect the service tax from the lessees/licencees. However, the petitioner collected the service tax for both the earlier period and for the current period and paid it to the respondent a total amount of ₹ 48,34,431/- as detailed below: 08.02.2012 Rs.10,31,796.00 11.09.2012 ₹ 9,80,442.00 31.10.2012 ₹ 5,82,823.00 05.11.2012 Rs.22,39,370.00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jurisdiction and discloses non application of mind. Therefore, they have prayed for quashing the impugned order. 4. The respondent has filed counter-affidavit stating that the petitioner is a statutory body and a Government entity. As per Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 r/w Rule 4, 6 and 7 of Service Tax Rules, 1994, the petitioner had to register themselves with the Department by due date; failed to pay service tax due from them for the taxable services rendered under the category of Renting of Immovable Property Service during the period from 1st June 2007 to 31st March 2011 and failed to file mandatory half yearly returns in the Form of ST-3. An amount of ₹ 79,33,135/- and ₹ 26,72,656/- being the service tax on the se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent, the petitioner have received a sum of ₹ 2,39,13,118/-, ₹ 2,00,67,415/- and ₹ 2,42,44,087/- as rent from the tenants during the years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively and therefore, service tax payable works out to ₹ 79,33,135/- for the period from 01.6.2007 to 31.3.2010. Accordingly, they have issued a show cause notice dated 18.4.2011 to the petitioner. Pursuant to the show cause notice, the petitioner has collected an amount of ₹ 2,59,48,122/- towards rent from April 2010 to March 2011 and ₹ 10,31,796/- towards service tax, but they have not credited the same into the Government account. Subsequently, the respondent issued another show cause notice dated 12.12.2011. It is also stated th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder-in-original in column no.3, it is made clear that the appeal must be filed in the prescribed form within three months from the date on which the order sought to be appealed against is communicated to the party preferring appeal and the petitioner being a statutory authority should have filed an appeal before the appellate authority within the time prescribed, but, on the contrary the petitioner has filed the present writ petition invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. The circumspection of the facts would reveal that the petitioner-Salem Corporation is a statutory body and a Government entity. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount demanded under Sl.No.(ii) above; (iv) I order imposition of penalty of ₹ 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994, for non filing of return and failure to apply for registration within the prescribed time limit; (v) I impose a penalty of ₹ 1,06,05,791/- (Rupees one crore six lakh five thousand seven hundred and ninety one only) on M/s.Salem Corporation, Suramangalam Ward under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. However, the amount of penalty liable to be paid shall be 25% of the service tax demanded in Sl. No.(ii) above, provided the service tax demanded and the interest payable thereon under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994, are paid within 30 days of communication of this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
