9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 597X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ORDER Heard Ms.Naveena.D, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and with their consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the respondent under Section 74 of the Finance Act where the petitioner has sought for rectification in the qua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Nine Thousand six Hundred and Eighty Five Only) [St: Rs. 1,55,034/-, Edu. Cess:Rs.3,101/- and SHEC: Rs. 1,550/-] paid by them and shown in their ST3 return for the period from 01.04.2009 to 30.09.2009 should not be appropriated against the above demand; Appropriate interest should not be demanded from them in terms of Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994; and Penalties shoul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntended that alternatively they have given their option under Rule 3(3) of Works Contract (Composition scheme for payment of service tax) Rules, 2007 and the said option was rejected without relying on the statutory provisions. By raising the above grounds, the petitioner sought for rectifying the mistake and the same has been rejected by the respondent by the impugned order. 5. A bare perusal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
