Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2019 (11) TMI 1128

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... al hearing. 2. The petitioner is a Public Limited Company engaged in the business of exploration and production of crude oil and natural gas. The petitioner was served with show cause notice dated 30.03.2016 by the second respondent, calling upon the petitioner to show cause to the first respondent as to why : "(i) the production of oil service provided by HOEC as discussed above should not be classified as "Mining Services" under Section 65 (105) (zzzy) of the Finance Act, 1994 or the taxable service, as the case may be; (ii) Service Tax of Rs. 25,28,69,990/- (Service Tax of Rs. 24,55,04,845/-, Education of Rs. 49,10,098/- and Secondary Higher Education Cess of Rs. 24,55,047/-) on the amount received by them for the taxable services p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 30.06.2012 and as the taxable service from 01.07.2012. (ii) I confirm the demand of Rs. 25,28,69,990/- (Rupees Twenty Five Crore Twenty Eight Lakh Sixty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred And Ninety Only) [Service Tax of Rs. 24,55,04,845/-, Education Cess of Rs. 49,10,098/- and Secondary Higher Education Cess of Rs. 24,55,047/-] for the period from 2010-11 to 2014-15 under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act 1994 read with Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994. (iii) I order that the service of Survey and Exploration provided by the assessee be classified as "Survey and Exploration Services" under Section 65 (104a) read with Section 65 (105) (zzv) of the Finance Act, 1994 up to 30.06.2012 and as the taxable service from 01.07.2012. (iv) I conf .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mainly by contending that the first respondent, before passing the impugned order, failed to consider two Circulars issued on 12.02.2018 and 05.03.2018 in Circular No.32/06/2018 - GST and Circular No.35/2018 - GST, respectively. 5. According to the petitioner, had the Adjudicating Authority considered those two Circulars which are in favour of the petitioner, he would have not passed the impugned Order in Original by treating the petitioner as a Service Provider and fixing the tax liability on the petitioner. Therefore, it is contended before this Court that the Adjudicating Authority has to consider those two Circulars and decide the matter afresh by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 6. The learned Senior counsel appea .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er, in fact it has dealt with the effect of such Circulars and decided the matter after considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and accordingly, the Adjudicating Authority has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is a Service Provider, liable to pay service tax. Therefore, the learned counsel contended that all the factual contentions raised by the petitioner before this Court, based on the above two Circulars, is a matter which needs to be considered and decided only by the next fact finding authority viz., the Appellate Authority and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to maintain the present writ petition, when admittedly, as against the impugned order, a statutory appellate remedy is available to the peti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d consequences thereof, in the case of the petitioner, is certainly a factual aspect of the matter which needs to be considered and decided only by a next fact finding authority viz., the Appellate Authority, even assuming that the Adjudicating Authority has not considered those two Circulars which according to the petitioner are in their favour. There is no dispute to the fact that as against the present order passed by the first respondent, a statutory appellate remedy is available before the CESTAT and therefore, all the factual contentions raised by the petitioner by relying on those two Circulars can very well be raised before the Appellate Tribunal, which, undoubtedly, also a fact finding authority, will have to go into the merits of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates