9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 309X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt - If the appellant desired to seek the benefit of the Master Circular dated 10.03.2017, he is expected to comply with the summons issued by the respondent seeking explanation/documents that were summoned by the respondent. The benefit of the Master Circular cannot be a one-way traffic and the appellant cannot milch the Master Circular to his advantage. The appellant was not entitled to pre-show cause notice as contemplated under Master Circular dated 10.03.2017 - Appeal dismissed. - WRIT APPEAL NO.546 OF 2021 (T-RES) - - - Dated:- 30-6-2021 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY APPELLANT (BY SRI SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI A. MAHESH CHOWDHARY, ADVOCATE) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cept for preventive/offence related to show cause notices), is mandatory and shall be done by the show cause notice issuing authority . The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Master Circular dated 10.03.2017 was binding and had to be followed in letter and spirit. He relied on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the Case of K.P. Varghese vs. Income Tax Officer [(1981) 4 SCC 173]. It is contended that mere possibility that at the end of the adjudication process, the petitioner may face consequences for having committed an offence under the Finance Act, 1994 need not per se render the show cause notice as an offence related show cause notice , so as to deprive the appellant of the benefit of a pre-show cause notice. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant to appear before the show cause notice issuing authority on 24.06.2021. 5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge, the appellant has filed this appeal. 6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that issuance of a pre-show cause notice was mandatory in terms of the Circular dated 10.03.2017 as well as the Circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs dated 19.11.2020. Therefore, the show cause notice ought to have been quashed by the learned Single Judge. He contended that the exception carved out for not issuing pre-show cause notices in respect of preventive / offence related show cause notices was not applicable to the facts of this case and aga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 with a Service Tax Liability of ₹ 1,53,76,975/- for the period from April 2015 to June 2017. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent therefore contended that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of pre-show cause notice as an offence case was registered against the appellant. He relied upon the Judgment of the Hon`ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Principal Commissioner, Central Excise, Service Tax and Central Tax Commissionerate Vs. Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd [SLP (Civil) Diary No.(s) 35886/2019 and the Judgment of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax vs. Sanket Communications Pvt. Ltd. [2017 (52) STR 449 (ORI) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly those officers competent to issue notices should engage in such consultation; they should adopt 'an open and receptive attitude and give full consideration to tax payer's points of view first before formulating their own opinion.' This exercise was to narrowed down the issues and confine the notice only 'in respect of unreserved issues'. Further the points on which agreement has been reached should not be contested any further by either party. 11. The above recommendations were accepted and the CBEC issued the Master Circular on 10th March, 2017. The relevant paragraph of the said Master Circular, which has been relied upon by both parties reads as under: 5.0 Consultation with the noticee before issue of Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
