9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 901X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the two aspects i.e., whether the petitioner had provided services to only Governmental authorities, and not others, and even if provided to Governmental authorities, whether the contracts were indivisible, or composite, and secondly whether the extended period of limitation as per the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 73 of the Act, would be applicable or not, would depend upon the factual examination and adjudication by the adjudicating authority. We are of the view that to preempt the adjudicating authority from carrying out the said exercise at the threshold would not be justified. From a reading of the show cause notice dated 18.10.2021, no definite view can be taken at this stage, that the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner all such works are indivisible composite work contracts and therefore, do not attract service tax. That apart, Government of India has issued notifications from time to time exempting such services provided to the Governmental authorities from payment of service tax. 4. On the basis of information received from the Income Tax Department, respondent has prima facie taken a view that petitioner had rendered certain taxable services and declared the value of the services in its return of income under the Income Tax Act, 1961, but as the service provider had not paid any service tax, the same has resulted in non-payment of service tax. It is in such circumstances, that the impugned show cause notice has been issued. 5. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sarma, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that at this stage it cannot be said that the conditions mentioned in the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 73 would not be applicable in the case of the petitioner. That is a matter of enquiry, and adjudication by the respondent No.1 upon filing of response by the petitioner. He submits that though the thirty days period would expire within two days, this court may extend the same, and direct the respondent No.1 to consider the contentions raised by the petitioner. He refers to paragraph No.5 of the impugned show cause notice and submits that despite letters and summons issued to the petitioner, there is no response from the petitioner. 8. In reply to the contentions of Mr.B.Narasi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s High Court (2 supra) is concerned, we find that learned single Judge of the said Court had declined to grant interim relief to the petitioner, for which writ appeal was preferred. In that proceeding, challenge was made to notification dated 01.03.2015 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi. In the facts and circumstances of that case, Division Bench of the Madras High Court held that no service tax should be levied or recovered from the appellant (petitioner). 12. In the instant case, the two aspects i.e., whether the petitioner had provided services to only Governmental authorities, and not others, and even if provided to Governmental authorities, whether the contracts were indivisible, or composite, and sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
