9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 879X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - the contention of the counsel for the petitioner has been that in the show-cause notice dated 19/03/2010 culminating in the order dated 23/12/2010, there was no invocation of Section 73A of the Act and therefore the proviso does not apply in the instant case, but the impugned order does not take into consideration that aspect of the matter. There is considerable force in the aforesaid submission inasmuch as the findings given in the order dated 23/12/2010 prima facie was with regard to Section 73 of the Act and not Section 73A. But the matter does not rest here. The other aspect of the matter is, one of the reasons given in the impugned order was that the earlier show-cause notice and the order dated 23/12/2010 was for the period Octo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 60 OF 2014 (T-TAR) - - - Dated:- 1-7-2014 - MRS. B.V. NAGARATHNA, J. Raghuraman V. and C.R. Raghavendra for the Petitioner. Pramod and R.G. Halesha for the Respondent. ORDER 1. The petitioner has assailed order dated 31/12/2013, passed by the first respondent - Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore (Annexure A ). Several other prayers are also sought by the petitioner. At the outset, petitioner's counsel submitted that the writ petition is restricted to challenge made to order at Annexure A and that liberty may be reserved to the petitioner to seek other prayers in an appropriate proceeding. Learned counsel for the respondents have no objections to the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. In t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 106, the case of the petitioner had to be considered. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents while supporting the impugned order, stated that the second proviso has been rightly invoked by the first respondent and that the impugned order would not call for any interference. 6. I have perused the impugned order, which is at Annexure A . It is noted from the said order that a discussion has been made as to whether there was any show-cause notice or determination that was issued or made under Section 73 or under Section 73A of the Act. It is the contention of the petitioner that the earlier proceedings was one under Section 73 of the Act and that Section 73A of the Act was not at all invoked and that for the subseque ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de by a person against whom, (a) an inquiry or investigation in respect of a service tax not levied or not paid or short- levied or short-paid has been initiated by way of: (i) search of premises under section 82 of the Chapter; or (ii) issuance of summons under section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as made applicable to the Chapter under section 83 thereof; or (iii) requiring production of accounts, documents or other evidence under the Chapter or the rules made thereunder; or (b) an audit has been initiated, and such inquiry, investigation or audit is pending as on the 1st day of March, 2013, then, the designated authority shall, by an order, and for reasons to be recorded in writing, reject such declaration. 8. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reasons given in the impugned order was that the earlier show-cause notice and the order dated 23/12/2010 was for the period October 2004 to March 2009, part of which period is covered under the Scheme, which was from 01/10/2007 up to 31/12/2012. It was reasoned by the respondent officer that for the period October 2007 to March 2009, there was already an order passed on 23/12/2010 and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to file the application under the Scheme. That reason is not correct in view of the fact that the period for tax dues is 01/10/2007 up to 31/12/2012. That period cannot be related to any period in respect of which an order has been passed by the authority under Section 73 of the Act. If there were any dues between th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
