9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 935X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned order is clearly non-speaking and does not set out any alternate demand. This cannot be set right by way of counter or additional note - To quote the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the celebrated case of MOHINDER SINGH GILL ANR. VERSUS THE CHIIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER, NEW DELHI ORS. [ 1977 (12) TMI 138 - SUPREME COURT] , orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older. The petitioner, in my view, ought to have been granted opportunity to put forth its case and to understand why its application was proposed to be rejected. Moreover, the scheme itself provides, at Section 127 thereof that once there is a variation between the amount stated in the declaration and the estimate arrived at by the Department, Form-2 shall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ernment. (i) As per the Ledger details furnished by M/s.KK.Nag, it is informed that the service tax liability is arrived at ₹ 14,35,471/- being the rent received by you for the period from Apr, 2012 to Jun,2017. You are requested to pay and clear the dues immediately along with interest. (ii) The details of proof of payment of service tax and interest made may be furnished to this office after making the payment. Treat this as most urgent and furnish the details. Yours faithfully Sd/-..... (D.Imayavarmban) Superintendent, T-1 Range 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that this communication has been received in 2017 itself and thus there is no infirmity in the same being taken to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rposes of arrears of the scheme. 5. Reference is made by the revenue to the decision of the Delhi High Court in Chaque Jour HR Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others [2020 (42) GSTL 24], wherein the facts are distinguishable. In that case, there is a clear finding to the effect that the declarant had not come with clean hands in order to avail benefit of the scheme. The petitioner therein had admitted only service tax liability without making any disclosure with regard to other tax dues and hence after investigation, a demand-cum-show cause notice had been issued. It was in those circumstances that, that assessees' application had come to be rejected, holding that the quantification of dues of the petitioner therein was i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence in the quantification qua that of the petitioner and the Revenue as may be seen from a comparison of the petitioner's declaration of ₹ 14,37,471/- as quantified by the revenue in its communication dated 29.12.2017 and ₹ 19,60,721/- as set out by the revenue in its computation dated nil filed in the compilation of documents dated 12.08.2021. 9. The quantification of the demand under cover of its compilation of documents dated 12.08.2021 is not valid because, even according to the Department, a substantial portion of that demand was barred by limitation. That apart, the impugned order is clearly non-speaking and does not set out any alternate demand. This cannot be set right by way of counter or additional note. To quo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
