9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 524X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tter dated 20th February, 2019 shall remain stayed. List on 1st August, 2019. - W.P.(C) 2138/2019 & CM Appl.No. 10002/2019 (stay) - - - Dated:- 11-3-2019 - JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE I.S. MEHTA For the Appellant : Mr. J.K. Mittal Ms. Vandana Mittal, Advocates For the Respondent : Mr. Siddharth Khatana, Sr. panel counsel And Mr. Amit Bansal, Advocate ORDER CM Appl.No. 10002/2019 (stay) 1. The challenge in the present petition is to the letter issued to the Petitioner on 20th February, 2019 by the Assistant Commissioner (Audit), Goods and Service Tax Audit-I Commissionerate (Respondent No.2) requiring the Petitioner to produce the following documents for the purposes of Audit of its accounts/records fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve request on many grounds. The first is that Rule 5A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 ( ST Rules‟) under which the above order/letters have been issued is itself unconstitutional. This Court had in its judgment in Mega Cabs Pvt. Limited v. Union of India 2016 (43) S.T.R. 67 (Del.) declared Rule 5A (2) of the ST Rules to be ultra vires the Finance Act 1994. However, the Supreme Court of India while issuing notice in the Special Leave Petition (C) 26675 of 2016 filed by the Union of India against the above judgment has stayed the operation of this Court‟s judgment. 3. Mr. J. K. Mittal, learned counsel for the Petitioner, has placed reliance an order passed by the High Court of Gujarat in M/s OWS Warehouse Services LLP vs. Union ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be ready with the instructions whether the Assistant Commissioner (Audit) was duly authorised. 6. The third issue raised by the Petitioner concerns the number of documents sought by the Respondents. Indeed, it appears prima facie to be a very long list of documents and it is doubtful whether all of these documents are in fact necessary for the purposes for which the notice has been issued. This is apart from the fact that there has already been an audit of the Petitioner‟s account/records up to the year 2014-15. This and this fact is not even noticed in the impugned letter dated 20th February 2019 issued by Respondent No.2. 7. For the aforementioned reason, the Court is of the view that the Petitioner has made out a prima fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
