9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 434X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... include would not constitute either suppression of material facts nor a wilful contravention of the provisions of the Act with a view to evade tax, justifying invocation of the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 73(i) of the Act either - Following decision of Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India [2012 (12) TMI 150 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal Nos. 572 of 2008, 803 804 of 2009, & 1307/2011 - Final Order No. 57202 - 57205/2013 - Dated:- 31-7-2013 - Mr. G. Raghuram and Mr. Sahab Singh, JJ. For the Appellant: Ms. Reena Khair Ms. Tuhina, Advocate For the Respondent: Shri Amresh Jain, DR JUDGEMENT Per Justice G. Raghuram: Heard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to be included in the gross value charged for the service provided for valuation of the tax liability under Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994. The adjudicating authority concluded that the value of the diesel so supplied by the service recipient to the assessee/ service provider should be included. Since the assessee failed to reveal the value of the diesel so provided by JSPL and to include the same in the gross value receipts disclosed in the Service Tax-3 returns and failed to remit tax on such value, proceedings were initiated culminating in the adjudication orders, impugned in these appeals. Since this is the core issue we refer to the adjudication order dated 16.05.2008 (subject matter of Appeal No. ST/572/2008) as illustrative of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax on the said service. This provision was challenged on the ground of transgressing the scope and trajectory of Section 67 of the Act. The High Court invalidated Rule 5(1) of the 2006 Rules on the conclusion that this provision was ultra vires Section 67 of the Act. In the course of analysis, the Delhi High Court concluded that in the context of Section 67 read holistically with the provisions of Section 66 as well, it is clear that quantification of the value of a service can never exceed the gross amount charged by the service provider for the service provided to him and that the mere fact that rule was made as a subordinate legislation would not enable an expansion of the legitimate contours of the statutory provision. Proceeding from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
