9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 892X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have written a letter to the department on 2.5.2014 stating that they are prepared and willing to deposit the necessary service tax within a given time. Therefore, nothing more need to be added. - petitioner directed to remit service tax wi thin 2 months. - writ petition disposed of. - W. P. No. 15276 of 2014 and M. P. No. 1 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 30-6-2014 - B. Rajendran,JJ. For the Petitioner :Mr. K. Jayachandran For the Respondent : Mr. S. Thirumavalavan, Senior Standing Counsel ORDER The Writ Petition has been filed seeking to quash the order dated 19.3.2010 passed by the 1st respondent and the consequential notice of demand dated 27.9.2014. 2. The case of the petitioner is that their lands have been acquired by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hence, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the same has to be set aside and consequently, the notice of demand dated 27.9.2011 is per se illegal, barred by limitation and liable to be dismissed by allowing the present Writ Petition. 4. Mr. S. Thirumavazhavan, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent producing the original records would submit that the Show Cause notice was received by the assessee in person and subsequent intimations dated 22.7.2009, 18.12.2009 and 11.2.2010 were depatched to the address M/s.Nila Engineering Contractors, Y-131 Block No.29, Neyveli. Similarly, the order in Original Order No.48/2010 dated 19.3.2010 was also despatched to the same address and the the same was acknowl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 and though the address was mentioned wrongly, the same was acknowledged by the petitioner with Rubber Stamp on 31.3.2009 itself. Secondly, a letter dated 22.7.2009 sent by the Superintendent (Technical), Cuddalore was acknowledged by the petitioner on 28.7.2009. Thirdly, the letter dated 9.11.2009 of the Superintendent (ST Cell), Cuddalore intimating the dates of personal hearing and calling for certain documents was acknowledged by the petitioner on 10.11.2009 itself. Likewise, the letter dated 18.12.2009 addressed to the petitioner was acknowledged by them on 26.12.2009 and the letters dated 11.2.2010 and 19.3.2010 have been acknowledged by the petitioner on 13.2.2010 and 29.3.2010 respectively. Thereafter, it appears that the copy of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
