9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 577X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fullest opportunity have been given to the respective petitioners and thereafter the orders under section 73(C)(1) have been passed. It cannot be said that the orders of extension of provisional attachment for a further period of one year, are non-speaking order - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner. - Special Civil Application No. 7727, 7737 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 25-1-2017 - M. R. Shah And B. N. Karia, JJ. Mr Anandodaya S Mishra, Advocate for the Petitioner Ms Avani S Mehta, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER ( Per : Honourable Mr. Justice M. R. Shah ) 1.00. As common question of law and facts arise in both these petitions, they are heard, decided and disposed of by this common order. 2.00. By way of these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the respective petitioners have challenged the order of provisional attachment of the properties of the respective petitioners, passed under section 73(C) of the Finance Act, 1994 and Service Tax (Provisional Attachment of Property) Rules, 2008. During the pendency of the present petitions, subsequently the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax has extend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 727 of 2016) and Mr.Jignesh Dhanshyambhai Panseriya, Chairman and Managing Director of M/s. Vintech Shoppe Pvt. Ltd., under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Surat- I, demanding tax amounting to ₹ 31,79,00,794/- (Rupees Thirty One Crore Seventy Nine Lacs Seven Hundred Ninety Four only) along with interest and penalty applicable thereon. 3.06. A similar Show Cause Notice was also issued on 21/10/2015 to M/s. Vintech Infrastructure, Surat (petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 7737 of 2016) by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Surat- I, demanding tax amounting to ₹ 1,58,41,969/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Eight Lacs Forty One Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty Nine only) along with interest and penalty applicable thereon. 3.07. Thus, the following Show Cause Notice has been issued to M/s. Vintech Shoppe Pvt. Ltd. and its associate viz. M/s. Vintech Infrastructure, Surat and M/s. Ramdev Developers, Surat, under the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, as under :- Sr. No. Name of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gned orders dated 18/3/2016 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Surat-I, passed under section 73(C) of the Finance Act, 1994 and Service Tax (Provisional Attachment of Property) Rules, 2008, the respective petitioners have preferred the present Special Civil Applications. 3.11. That during the pendency of the present petitions, the Chief Commissioner passed the respective orders of extension of provisional attachment for a further period of one year. Therefore, by way of amendment, the respective petitioners have also challenged the order passed by the Chief Commissioner, extending the provisional attachment for a further period of one year. 4.00. Mr.Mishra, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the respective petitioners and Ms.Avni Mehta, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the department. 5.00. Mr.Mishra, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respective petitioners has mainly concentrated on the orders of extension passed by the Chief Commissioner extending the provisional attachment for a further period of one year, as so far as the original provisional attachment orders passed by the Commissioner are concerned, by e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spective petitioners by which the respective petitioners were called upon to show cause as to why the properties mentioned in the show cause notices should not be provisionally attached under section 73(C) of the Finance Act, 1994 and Service Tax (Provisional Attachment of Property) Rules, 2008. It is submitted that thereafter after giving fullest opportunity to the respective petitioners and with a view to protect the interest of the revenue and it was observed and found that the respective petitioners are likely to dispose of the properties hurriedly with a view to defeat the demand raised, when the orders of provisional attachment have been passed, the same cannot be said to be erroneous and/or illegal. 6.01. Ms. Avni Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent department revenue has further submitted that so far as the challenge to the impugned orders passed by the Chief Commissioner of extension of provisional attachment for a further period of one year on the ground that the same are in breach of the principles of natural justice is concerned, it is submitted that fullest opportunity was given to the respective petitioners by the Commissioner before pas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Commissioner of provisional attachment of the properties of the respective petitioners. Section 73(C) of the Finance Act, 1994 and the relevant Rules namely Service Tax (Provisional Attachment of Property) Rules, 2008, more particularly Rule 8 provides for provisional attachment of the properties belonging to person / firm against whom notices have been served for demanding Service Tax. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the orders of provisional attachment passed by the Commissioner are in any way illegal and/or dehors the provisions of the statute. 7.02. Now, so far as the challenge to the impugned orders passed by the Chief Commissioner of extending provisional attachment for a further period of one year are concerned, it is required to be noted that section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 permits the Chief Commissioner to extend the period of provisional attachment. Under the statute, no hearing is provided before passing the order of extension of provisional attachment under section 73(C)(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, like while passing original order of provisional attachment by the Commissioner under section 73(C)(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. Section 73(C) o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner it appears that the learned Chief Commissioner has considered at length the records of the case and all the relevant facts, details and statutory provisions. He has also considered the material on record demonstrating that the investigation resulted in issue of demand and recovery of service tax amounting to ₹ 31,79,00,794/- against M/s. Vintech and total service tax dues amounting to ₹ 34,08,47,693/- against M/s. Vintech and its other associates. While passing the order of extension of provisional attachment in para 4, the Chief Commissioner observed as under :- I have considered at length the records of the case and all relevant facts, details and statutory provisions. The material available on record demonstrate that investigations resulted in issue of demand and recovery of service tax dues amounting to ₹ 31,79,00,794/- against M/s. Vintech and a total of service tax dues amounting to ₹ 34,08,47,693/- against M/s. Vintech and other associates. After considering all the facts and circumstances, I consider that it is essential for the purpose of protecting the interest of revenue to extend the period of attachment of specified properties for a f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
