9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 933X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the impugned order will not attract service tax under Section 65(105)(zzzzj) of the Finance Act, 1994. In the alternative, if this Court declines to grant relief as aforesaid, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents 4 and 5 to pay the entire amount of value added tax recovered from the petitioner to the respondent no.3 in discharge of liability towards the service tax payment. The petitioner company lets heavy machinery on hire to its customers. A show cause notice dated 25.3.2010 was issued to the petitioner asking the petitioner to pay service tax on two counts. The demand was made for 'business auxiliary service', and the 'supply of tangible goods service'. By the impugned order dated 23.9.2011, the Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pvt.Ltd. vs. CEGAT, Madras) and an unreported order dated 23.8.2012 in W.P.No. 255312 for seeking dismissal of the writ petition in view of the existence of an alternate efficacious remedy. Shri Gordey, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the appeal under section 86 of the Act would not be an efficacious remedy in this case as the petitioner is not liable to pay service tax on transactions in question in view of the two circulars issued by the Finance Department. The learned senior counsel submitted that it is not permissible for the Central Government to impose the service tax and at the same time for the State to impose the sales tax and the value added tax. The learned Senior Counsel submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otherwise of the demand in regard to supply of tangible goods can be decided by the appellate authority in an appeal under section 86 of the Finance Act. The question of applicability of the two circulars issued by the Finance Department to the facts involved in this case can as well be considered by the appellate Authority while deciding the appeal under section 86. It is a well settled principle of law that the High Court should exercise restraint in entertaining the writ petitions in tax matters when effective alternate remedy is provided under the statute. The question about the liability of the petitioner to pay only one of the taxes i.e. service tax or sales tax would arise only if the challenge of the petitioner to the order of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
