9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 610X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to any enquiry, investigation or audit, as not eligible. Even though Section 125(1)(f) does not make a specific reference to any date, the Division Benches of this Court in M/S. NEW INDIA CIVIL ERECTORS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [ 2021 (3) TMI 545 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and UCC INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., VERSUS UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI, JOINT COMMISSIONER CGST AND CX NAVI MUMBAI, COMMISSIONER CGST AND CX, NAVI MUMBAI, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CGST AND CX, NAVI MUMBAI [ 2022 (2) TMI 94 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] have interpreted Section 125 to mean that the investigation must be pending as of 30 June 2019 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le to apply as the matter was under investigation. This show cause notice is the subject matter of challenge in the Petition. The factual matrix and the analysis are as follows. 3. The Petitioner is a private limited company engaged in construction and development. The Petitioner was registered as a service provider under the provisions of the Finance Act, of 1994. 4. A scheme titled Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, was introduced under the Finance Act 2019 by the Central Government to end the pending litigations and offer certain benefits to the declarants. The Scheme is governed by Chapter-V from Section 120 to Section 135 of the Finance Act. The Scheme was for resolution of legacy disputes and also an amnesty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e show cause notice dated 30 December 2020 called upon the Petitioner to show cause as to why the amount of Rs.1,37,70,406/- be not paid by the Petitioners towards service tax liability along with applicable cesses under the proviso to section 73(1) read with section 66 and section 66B of Chapter-V of the Finance Act 1994. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner is before us, challenging the impugned show cause notice. 7. We have heard Mr.Bharat Raichandani, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.J.B.Mishra, learned counsel for the Respondents. 8. As regards the issuance of a statement by the Designated Committee is concerned, the same is referred to under section 127. Rectification of errors is provided under section 128, and the conclusi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r correcting arithmetical and clerical errors. 10. It is not necessary for us to rule on the argument of the Petitioner that only the Designated Committee will have jurisdiction, if at all, to recall the Discharge certificate. Because even proceeding on the basis that Respondent No.4 had the jurisdiction, the declaration submitted by the Petitioner could not be treated as false, and no action against the Petitioner on that ground was warranted in light of the factual and legal position as argued by the Petitioner. 11. The Petitioner contends that there is no falsity in any of the declarations of the petitioner as admittedly, on 30 June 2019, there were no investigation proceedings pending against the Petitioner. The learned counsel fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
