9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 852X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted a representation on 20.10.2016 reiterating his earlier stand and requested for rectification of the mistake by enclosing the copies of the challans, work sheet etc., Inspite of such representation, once again, the first respondent has stated that there is no error in the Order-in-Original calling for rectification. If respondents 1 and 2 are unable to reconcile the accounts in their office, it shows the manner in which the office administration is taking place. This Court is fully convinced that the petitioner has been harassed by the Department by passing the impugned order - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - W.P.No.6577 of 2017, WMP.Nos.7068 and 7069 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 14-7-2017 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s.Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited and M/s.Bharat Medicare Private Limited and in respect of the rental income received, the petitioner was required to remit Service Tax. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner has remitted the Service Tax in respect of the property leased out to M/s.Cholamandalam. Even in Paragraph 6 of the Show Cause Notice, the first respondent has admitted that there is no liability towards the property leased out to M/s.Cholamandalam and that since September, 2011, the petitioner has been paying service tax regularly in respect of the said property and has filed Service Tax returns. The dispute is only with regard to the property leased out to M/s.Bharat Scans. 8. The petitioner was su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that the petitioner has not paid service tax and confirmed the proposal under the Show Cause Notice. 10. I find that there is no discussion as to the payment effected by the petitioner and no finding has been rendered by the first respondent on the said aspect. Thus, it is clear that the impugned order has been passed without appropriate application of mind. Even after the impugned order was served on the petitioner, the petitioner submitted a representation on 20.10.2016 reiterating his earlier stand and requested for rectification of the mistake by enclosing the copies of the challans, work sheet etc., Inspite of such representation, once again, the first respondent has stated that there is no error in the Order-in-Original calling ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
