9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 549X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch information was not supplied then the case would fall under Section 73(a), but the demand was called for in the year 2001 and on the basis of the information supplied, showcause notice came to be issued and thus the case of the assessee would not fall under Section 73(a) and it would fall under Section 73(b) of the Act. The tribunal has committed serious error by not considering the submissions made by the appellant. Appeal disposed off – decided in favor of appellant. - TAX APPEAL NO. 1279 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 10-8-2016 - MR. KS JHAVERI AND MR. G.R.UDHWANI, JJ. FOR THE APPELLANT : MR PARESH M DAVE, ADVOCATE FOR THE OPPONENT : MS AVANI S MEHTA, ADVOCATE (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) By way of this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Service Tax net services of mandap keeper as defined under Section 65 (67) of the Finance Act, 1994, as well as, the appellant also got service tax registration as a mandap keeper. It is the case of the appellant that appellant has also been filing quarterly returns in Form ST3 and paying service tax on the monies charged and received by it for providing services as a mandap keeper. The returns have also been accepted by the proper Central Excise Officers and the amounts was paid as service tax by the appellant. 2.2 It is the case of the appellant that a showcause notice dated 14/10/2002 came to be issued by the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Surat1 whereby alleging that taxable service for the period from 01/0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d sustainable ? (b) Whether confirmation of demand of service tax on use of Auditoriums, etc. for functions like Sports, Meet, Garba for Mataji etc. was legally correct and sustainable? 4. Learned Counsel Mr.Paresh Dave appearing for the appellant has drawn attention of this Court to Section 73 of the Finance Act which provides for service of a notice within six months, or five years, as the case may be. He has also drawn attention of this Court to Section 73(a) which covers cases where there was omission of failure on the part of the assessee to make a return for any quarter or to disclose wholly or truly all material facts necessary for amendment for any quarter. 4.1 He has further contended that for the time the information ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is required to be noted that learned Counsel for the appellant does not press for question No.(b). Accordingly, we would not answer the question No.(b) and stands concluded as not pressed. 7. Now, so far as question No.(b) is concerned, having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having gone through the impugned notice, reply and counterreply, the facts which are emerging from record are that the assessee filed its return, however under the bonafide belief they have not paid paid service tax for certain activities and therefore the case would fall under Section 73(b) of the Act. It is also required to be noted that the Tribunal has also not rendered any findings so far as the appellant had not paid the service tax on the amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
