9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 559X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was issued on 01.03.2015 but it came into effect on 01.04.2015. Since there was still some ambiguity as regards the treatment of the subject matter for the period from 01.04.2015 to 01.03.2016, to deal with the same, Section 102 of the Finance Act, 2016 was brought in. The second respondent clearly erred in proceeding on the premise that the exemption on which, the appellate order was predicated no longer held good. On this sole ground, the order impugned in the writ petition has to go. When the order suffers from a patent illegality, it is certainly open to the aggrieved party to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court - petitioner is a public sector undertaking. It is funded entirely by the Government. Even for the construction act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t petitioner had entered into agreements with a number of contractors during the period November 2013 to November 2014. 4.The question that arises for my consideration was whether for the works contract service provided by those contractors, service tax was leviable. The assessing authority vide order 26.03.2018 held that service tax was leviable and called upon the petitioner/corporation to pay a sum of ₹ 80,89,787/- with interest. Questioning the same, the petitioner/corporation filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority vide order dated 09.01.2019 in Order-in-Appeal No.16/2019, set aside the order passed by the original adjudicating authority. In the said appellate order, it was specifically held t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exemption clause in the Mega Notification dated 20.06.2012 was withdrawn later and therefore, the appellate authority's order cannot govern the present proceeding. 7.I am not persuaded by any of the three submissions. As rightly urged by the learned Additional Advocate General, though clause No.12(a) was withdrawn from the Mega Exemption Notification, it was reintroduced vide notification No.6/2015, dated 01.03.2015 issued by the department of Revenue and Finance Ministry, Government of India. The withdrawal notice was issued on 01.03.2015 but it came into effect on 01.04.2015. Since there was still some ambiguity as regards the treatment of the subject matter for the period from 01.04.2015 to 01.03.2016, to deal with the same, Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . When the order suffers from a patent illegality, it is certainly open to the aggrieved party to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 9.I must of course deal with other contention raised by the learned standing counsel for the respondents that the order passed by the appellate authority has to be put to challenge before the Tribunal. I posed a question as to whether any interim order of stay has been obtained. It is fairly stated that the challenge is pending only at the appeal stage and that no interim order has been obtained. When the appellate order is holding good, the original adjudicating authority ought not to have passed an order at variance with the appellate order. On this ground also, the impugned order has to go. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
