9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llahabad High Court in case of A.C.L. Education Centre (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India reported in [2014 (1) TMI 1562 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], upheld the vires of the Rule on a concession being made by the counsel for the Union that for the purpose of collecting the information from the assessee to assess the correct tax, the Commissioner may appoint a Chartered Accountant for the purpose of audit and that audit will not be done by any other officer on his behalf. Prima facie, therefore, if Rule 5A is not valid, a serious question of the powers of the authority to issue the impugned communication would arise. Subsidiary question would be, even if Rule 5A is valid, would the communication in question be covered within the powers of the Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the audit of the accounts of the petitioner. Petitioner points out that Rule 5A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 has been held unconstitutional by the Delhi High Court in its decision dated 04.08.2014 rendered in case of Travelite (India) Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 2014 (35) S.T.R. 653. The case of the petitioner is that in any case such Rule 5A would not authorize an audit party from C.A.G. to conduct any such special audit. Reliance in this way is placed on the decision of the learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court in case of SKP Securities Ltd. dated 26th September 2012, copy of which is produced at page 36 of the compilation of this petition. It was contended that quite apart from Rule 5A being ultra vires, Rule 5A1 when ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he question in relation to selling of the broadband rights by the Union of India to the private service providers and quantification of the revenue in determining the licence fee and spectrum charges payable to Union of India under Unified Access Services Licences entered into between Department of Telecommunication and the private service providers. These observations, therefore, in our prima facie opinion, would not clothe CAG or its wing to carry out a special audit. 4. Prima facie, therefore, if Rule 5A is not valid, a serious question of the powers of the authority to issue the impugned communication would arise. Subsidiary question would be, even if Rule 5A is valid, would the communication in question be covered within the powers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
