9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 721X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same name and style. 2. One Shri Birendra Singh was Proprietor of M/s Premier Security Services, having his office at 309, Murli Bhawan, Ashok Marg, Lucknow, registered with Service Tax Department under Registration No.ANUPPS0452PST001, was engaged in providing Security Agency Service, Manpower Recruitment Agency, Cleaning Activity, etc. The said proprietor was regularly filing the returns and paying the taxes. The said proprietor Shri Birendra Singh died on 11/04/2009. On 15/04/2009, the Department issued a notice with reference to Audit objections in the name of the deceased proprietor. His one of the sons and also legal heir approached the Department to reregister the said proprietorship concern, as proprietor Jasjit Singh with the new ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any additional duty if due will be payable by him and further praying to issue fresh Service Tax Registration Number. It is relevant to mention that prior to this Mr. Jasjit Singh had filed application for Registration in form ST I under the name and style of M/s Premier Security Services. In response thereto some clarifications were called by the Range Superintendent vide letter dated 18th May, 2009. Mr. Jasjit Singh also filed a fresh lease agreement dated 17th November, 2009, wherein the premises had been taken on lease for office by him, which was earlier the office of the proprietorship of late Birendra Singh. 4. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 20/10/2009 was issued mentioning that M/s Premier Security Services Proprietor Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 19th May, 2010, confirming demand of Rs. 33,39,092/- along with penalty under Section 78 of equal amount with interest and further penalty was also imposed under Section 76 & 77 of the Act. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 22nd March, 2011 was pleased to reject the appeal, confirming the Order-in-Original. 6. Being aggrieved the legal heir Shri Jasjit Singh is in appeal before this Tribunal, both on merits as well as the legality of issuance of show cause notice, after the death of the proprietor Late Birendra Singh, for demand allegedly short paid, when admittedly late Birendra Singh was the proprietor. 7. The learned Counsel for the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n a position to locate any business records. They submitted that the proceedings initiated against the deceased abated on his death in the absence of any provision in the Central Excise and Salt Act to continue assessment proceedings against a dead person in the hands of legal representatives. The said show cause notice was, therefore, challenged as being without jurisdiction. As the Excise Authorities hearing the matter refused to pass an order on the maintainability of show cause notice alone, the legal heirs approached the High Court in Writ Petition in January, 1990. The learned Single Judge of the High Court quashed the proceedings against the legal heirs stating that the Central Excise and Salt Act did not contain any provisions for c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rved that in the case of taxing statutes, moral principle of unlawful enrichment is not applicable. Taxing statute must be interpreted in light of what is clearly expressed. Court cannot imply anything which is not expressed and it cannot import provisions in statute so as to supply any assumed deficiency. Accordingly the learned Counsel prays for allowing the appeal with consequential benefits. 8. The learned A.R. for revenue have relied on the impugned order. He further relied on the ruling of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs Leelamma George (supra). Further, the learned counsel relies on the ruling of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs Vs Leel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner of Central Excise Vs Dhiren Gandhi reported at 2012 (27) STR 452 (Kar.). 9. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that the proprietor Birendra Singh, with respect to whom show cause notice was issued after his death, purportedly on the legal heir Shri Jasjit Singh is ab-initio avoid and hit by the ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Shabina Abraham (supra). I further hold that it is of no consequence or help to the revenue that the legal heir Shri Jasjit Singh have also taken registration under the same name and style and is carrying on similar business. The said proprietorship concern of Shri Jasjit Singh is totally different from the earlier proprietorship concern of his late father Shri Birendra Singh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
