9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 1095X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity not covered by the Service Tax Act, 1998 (for short the Act). Obviously because of the pervasive and far-reaching nature of the provisions of the Act, certain authorities, who are endowed with the powers under the Act, have virtually become law unto themselves. Though such a phenomenon may have started with reference to some assessees, the tendency, if percolates into mind of an officer, refuses to differentiate between the ordinary assessees and the Government organizations. The petitioner is a Government of India undertaking brought into existence by the Indian Railways, for the purpose of rendering high level consultancy and technical services. The Act came into existence in the year 1998 and the petitioner got itself registered und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent ought to have taken steps for refund without any objection. It is pleaded that the principles underlying Section 11-B of the Act, particularly, of time limit, need not be applied to the present case, since the petitioner is an Agency of the Government of India. On behalf of the respondents, a detailed counter affidavit is filed. It is stated that though the activity as regards which the service tax was paid was not under the purview of the Act at the relevant point of time, the Central Board of Excise and Customs (for short the Board) issued a Circular, dated 18.12.2002 stating that the activity is very much under the purview of the Act. It is also pleaded that the petitioner is not entitled for refund, since it did not furnish th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The 3rd respondent did not comply with the first part of the order passed by the 2nd respondent, and refused to refund any amount to the petitioner. Once the petitioner asserted that it did not pass on the liability of service tax to its customer i.e .. BSNL, it could have been verified as to whether BSNL paid any amount to the petitioner towards service tax. The irresponsibility on the part of the incumbents, who held the office of the 3rd respondent from time to time, is evident from the fact that they just sat over the matter and did not release even a single rupee to the petitioner. If this is the treatment accorded to a Government of India undertaking, one can easily understand the type of treatment, which the officials of that Depa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
