9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 920X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he CST could not have restricted the examination to the SCN and the reply thereto, but was expected to examine the assessment record. The Court is unable to agree with the contention of learned counsel for the Respondent that it was incumbent on AAI to have drawn the attention of the adjudicating authority to the fact of filing of the revised return on 26th June, 2006. It is expected that the adjudicating authority will examine the entire record of AAI not limited to the documents supplied with the SCN or supplied along with the reply thereto. The rectification application should be decided afresh within a period of eight weeks - petition allowed by wya of remand. - W.P.(C) 10870/2015 - - - Dated:- 25-7-2017 - MR. S. MURALIDHAR AND ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court proposes to proceed on merits. 5. The Additional Director General, DGCEI, Zonal Unit Bombay had issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 18th July, 2006, followed by a corrigendum dated 13th September 2006, to AAI asking it to show cause as to why it should not be asked to pay service tax on the various services provided by it including those which were sought to be brought within the ambit of airport services . 6. AAI filed a response to the aforementioned SCN and corrigendum on 15th September, 2006. Subsequently an adjudicating order was passed by the CST on 15th December, 2006 confirming a service tax demand aggregating to approximately ₹ 369.93 crores. 7. During the pendency of the appeals against the above order be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eturn filed by the AAI on 26th June, 2006 were not taken into account. 11. With regard to the issue concerning the rent charged by the AAI for the space in the Scope Complex, Mr. Harpreet Singh learned counsel for the Respondent pointed out that there was no mistake apparent from the face of the record on this aspect in the adjudication order as the CST had relied on the information provided by AAI itself. As to the revised return filed by the AAI, it is pointed out that the Assessee had filed another revised return on 3rd March, 2006. However, the fact that a revised return was filed on 26th June, 2006, was not made known to the Field Officers of the ST Department. Mr Singh accordingly submitted that there was no obligation on the CST t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order dated 8th January 2008, passed by the CST rejecting the rectification application itself notes that AAI had filed a revised return on 26th June, 2006. In any event, this formed part of the assessment record and, therefore, available with the Department. In such circumstances, the CST could not have restricted the examination to the SCN and the reply thereto, but was expected to examine the assessment record. 14. It is plain that the impugned adjudication order, which was passed subsequent to the filing of the revised return by the Petitioner, did not account for the figures mentioned in the revised return. The Court is unable to agree with the contention of learned counsel for the Respondent that it was incumbent on AAI to have dra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
