9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1274X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een included in the total value. This undoubtedly is an error apparent on the face of the record - Furthermore, in their application under Section 74, the petitioner has specifically sought for a personal hearing which was also not been offered. The matter is remanded to the respondent to consider the application filed by the petitioner under Section 74 of the Finance Act, after granting an opportunity of personal hearing - petition allowed by way of remand. - W.P.No.14736 of 2016 and W.M.P.No.12874 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 7-6-2016 - Mr. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. For The Petitioner : Ms.Naveena.D For The Respondent : Mr.A.P.Srinivas, Standing Counsel ORDER Heard Ms.Naveena.D, learned counsel appearing for the petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on them under Section 77 of the Act for failure to self-assess the Service Tax correctly and declare it in the ST-3 returns. 3. The petitioner submitted their reply on 29.09.2015. Apart from raising legal issues, the petitioner stated that the Department has quantified the demand without reducing the value of the land which was included in the amount charged. It was stated that the land value of the transactions for the period July 2012 to September 2014 works out to ₹ 28,17,39,233/-. Therefore, they have stated that they are eligible for the exemption under notification 26/2012-ST. Along with the reply, the petitioner is said to have given undivided land share, sales summary, sales accounts for various periods and other records ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pecific case of the petitioner in the reply to the show cause notice was that the value of the land has been included in the amount charged. Along with the reply to the show cause notice, the petitioner has furnished details of the undivided land sale transactions. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that several box files containing particulars and documents were furnished to the authority along with the reply to the show cause notice. However, while considering the reply, the respondent merely averred that there is no corroborating or convincing evidence given in support of their claim. There is no averment in the impugned order as to the relevance or irrelevance of the records produced by the petitioner. 7. Therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
