9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 802X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve Officer, Roads and Buildings Department, Medchal-Malkajgiri Division, State of Telangana. 3. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged legality and validity of the order-in-original dated 16.11.2018 passed by respondent No.4. 4. From a perusal of the order-in-original dated 16.11.2018 we find that petitioner is a State Government department and is engaged in activities related to State Government roads and buildings and providing services in relation thereto, but it was not registered with the service tax department nor did it make any service tax payment under Section 69 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994, though it was a service provider. Intelligence gathered revealed that R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wards taxable services viz. "Renting of Immovable Property Service" provided by them during the period from August, 2012 to March, 2016 in terms of the proviso to Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of CGST Act, 2017; iii) I order the payment of Late fee amount to Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) calculated @ 20,000/- maximum per return for 10 Return for not filing the ST-3 Returns for the period from 2012-13 to 2016-17 in terms of the proviso to Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 7C of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and read with Section 174 of CGST Act, 2017; iv) I order the payment of interest at applicable rate(s) to be demanded/recovered from them under Section 75 of Finance Act, 1994 on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iginal, respondent No.4 has imposed service tax of Rs.49,25,373.00; late fee of Rs.2 lakhs; and penalty of Rs.49,25,373.00 on the petitioner. On a query by the Court, learned Special Government Pleader fairly submits that because of lapse on the part of certain officials, appeal could not be filed against the impugned order-in-original dated 16.11.2018 and the limitation period had long expired. Insofar the impugned notice dated 17.03.2021 is concerned, he submits that petitioner was not aware of this notice as a copy of the said notice was not marked to the petitioner; it was a communication between respondent No.3 and respondent No.5. Learned Special Government Pleader further submits that if an interim stay is not granted, the acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order dated 24.03.2022. Today also when the matter is called upon, learned Special Government Pleader representing the petitioner could not furnish the names of the State Government officials responsible for not filing the appeal.
8. In view of the aforesaid development and also considering the fact that the writ petition has been filed long after expiry of the limitation period for filing appeal, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. We recall our order dated 24.03.2022.
9. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
10. Let a copy of this order be furnished to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Telangana.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
