9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 675X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant (Revenue) appears to have misunderstood the interim orders of this Court and did not take any action by way of issuing a show cause notice to the assessee for recovery of service tax. It is only after the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of that the appellant issued a show cause notice to the assessee on 19-10-2005 seeking to recover Service Tax. The interim order passed by this Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time. 3. The assessee was a recipient of services rendered by Goods Transport Operators during the period 16-11-1997 to 2-6-1998. A letter was issued to the assessee on 4-11-2003 directing payment of Service Tax on the services received during the relevant period. 4. The letter dated 4-11-2003 was issued on the basis of a letter issued by the Director General of Service Tax on 8-10-2003. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervice Tax on the services received. 6. It will be clear from the order passed by this Court that there was no stay of any proceedings for recovery of tax in accordance with law. 7. The appellant appears to have misunderstood the interim orders of this Court and did not take any action by way of issuing a show cause notice to the assessee for recovery of service tax. It is only after the afo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... explanation says that where service of notice is stayed by an order of a Court, the period of such stay shall be excluded in computing the period of one year or five years (as the case may be) for service of notice. 10. As mentioned above, the interim order passed by this Court did not stay service of notice, but only prevented the appellant from recovering tax, which was assessed ex parte and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... luded for the purposes of computing the time available for service of the show cause notice. This contention was rejected by the Supreme Court since no interim direction was given by the Karnataka High Court in the matter of issuance of notice or levy of duty. Apart from a plain reading of Section 73 of the Act, we are fortified in our view with the opinion rendered by the Supreme Court in the jud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
