9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 901X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Tax, Rangareddy GST Commissionerate, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why income declared in the Income Tax Return for the period 2016-17 and for the period 2017-18 up to June, 2017 should not be treated as income received from taxable services under the Finance Act, 1994 (briefly 'the Act' hereafter), besides levy of interest and imposition of penalty. 3. Petitioner is a works contractor, carrying out such contract works with the Governmental authorities, like construction of buildings, roads etc. According to the 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 servi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itions mentioned in the proviso, which enable the extension of the period of limitation, would be available against the petitioner, as there is no fraud, nor any collusion, nor willful mis-statement; nor suppression of facts, nor contravention of any of the provisions of the Chapter V of the Act. That apart, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent is pre-determined to levy service tax on the petitioner and, therefore, response to the show cause notice would be a mere formality. 7. On the other hand Mr.B.Narasimha 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 p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not be necessary for us to dilate on the decisions of the Kolkata High court and Madras High Court, as well as that of CESTAT, Allahabad in detail. Each case stands on its own merit. 10. Insofar Kolkata case (1 supra) is concerned, we find that after the show cause notice, Order-in-Original was passed by the authority, which was impugned in the writ proceeding. That apart, additional challenge made was to the instructions issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. 11. As regards the case in the Madras 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 no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
