9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 1332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice it also reflects that at the time of the audit the Petitioner had been repeatedly asked to submit certain details on the basis of which audit could be done, but from the contents of show cause notice it reflects that there was a certain element of non-cooperation at the hands of the Petitioner. Thereafter, the authorities of the Respondents have discussed the entire factual matrix of the case and the legal provisions also and then the show cause notice has been issued. Considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner particularly the fact that the amount that they have received whether is non-taxable, this aspect is one which would require consideration by the competent authority after considering the variou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the said amount is not any consideration for the services rendered but is the compensation for the breach of contract at the hands of the company based at Finland, namely, M/s Outotec (Filters), Ove (Finland). 3. Contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the said amount which they have received is towards compensation and is not any consideration for the services rendered and therefore it would fall within the exempted category as is defined under Section 66E(e). The further contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the plain perusal of the definition of 'service' as is defined under Section 65B(44) also would clearly reflect that the said is an exempted category, as under Section 44A(iii) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come Tax Officer, Rampur, 1973 (1) SCC 633 and which has further been reiterated in the case of Shrisht Dhawan (Smt.) v. M/s Shaw Brothers, 1992 (1) SCC 534. 5. Learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that the present writ petition at this juncture is too premature on the ground that the Petitioner has been granted sufficient opportunity to defend their case before the assessing authority and that all the contentions of the Petitioner which they are raising in the present writ petition can also be taken care of by the assessing authority. That the arguments which have been led by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner are all at this juncture presumptive and the petition is too premature. It was also objected by the learned Counsel f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hee statute is in question or where private or public wrongs are so inextricably mixed up and the prevention of public injury and the vindication of public justice require it that recourse may be had to Article 226 of the Constitution. But then the Court must have good and sufficient reason to by-pass the alternative remedy provided by statute. Surely matters involving the revenue where statutory remedies are available are not such matters. The Supreme Court can take judicial notice of the fact that the vast majority of the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are filed solely for the purpose of obtaining interim orders and there after prolong the proceedings by one device or the other. The practice certainly needs to be strongly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the authority concerned who is obliged to decide the same. In Union of India v. Vicco Laboratories, 2007 (13) SCC 270, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: 31. Normally, the writ court should not interfere at the stage of issuance of show-cause notice by the authorities. In such a case, the parties get ample opportunity to put forth their contentions before the authorities concerned and to satisfy the authorities concerned about the absence of case for proceeding against the person against whom the show-cause notices have been issued. Abstinence from interference at the stage of issuance of show- cause notice in order to relegate the parties to the proceedings before the authorities concerned is the normal rule. However, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a at this juncture as there is an alternative remedy available to the Petitioner. Further, what is also apparent is the fact that it is not a case where the Petitioner had promptly at the threshold approached the writ Court challenging the show cause notice. The Petitioner for reasons best known to them have waited for almost seven months of time and thereafter have preferred the present writ petition. In spite of having received seven months' time they have not even replied to the show cause notice. All these facts make this Court reluctant to interfere with the impugned show cause notice. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the opinion that it would not be proper at this juncture to interfere with the impugned show caus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
