9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 71X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ently Asked Question No.26 as to whether pre-deposit made at any stage should be taken into account. The Respondents did not deny the applicability of the Circular or the interpretation given by the Petitioners. The Respondents have cast doubt on the payment made on 10 March 2012, arguing that the challans cannot be considered as a pre-deposit against the show cause notice. However, the reply does not provide any other reason for this doubt, and it is only based on the fact that the payment was made after the issuance of the show cause notice. The Respondents did not comment on the letter dated 30 December 2019, where the Petitioners submitted the challans to the Principal Commissioner, CGST, in support of their claim. This letter was su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by order dated 13 February 2020. 3. Petitioner No.1 is a company that constructs immovable properties and leases them to various clients. Petitioner No.2 is the director of Petitioner No.1. Both Petitioners are registered under the Finance Act, 1994, for the purpose of levying service tax. During the financial year 2010-11, Petitioners rented out certain premises to M/s. Pantaloon Retail (I) Pvt. Ltd and received rent in connection with the leased premises. The lessee did not pay service tax, claiming that the levy of service tax on renting immovable property was under challenge before the Hon ble Supreme Court by the Developers Association. The Hon ble Supreme Court directed the lessee to deposit 50% of the service tax amount in three e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the amount payable under the Scheme as Rs.6,18,000/-.A personal hearing was scheduled by the Designated Committee, which the Petitioners' representative attended on 27 December 2019. According to the Petitioners, during the hearing, they pointed out that Rs.23,07,200/- had already been deposited and submitted proof of payment by letter dated 30 December 2019, including copies of the challans. Despite this, the Designated Committee issued form SVLDRS-3, stating that the pre-deposit of Rs.23,07,200/- could not be verified, and therefore, the claim of the pre-deposit was denied. 5. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the impugned order is without application of mind and overlooking the proof of challans duly submitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stoms has answered affirmatively to the Frequently Asked Question No.26 as to whether pre-deposit made at any stage should be taken into account. The Respondents did not deny the applicability of the Circular or the interpretation given by the Petitioners. 7. The Respondents have cast doubt on the payment made on 10 March 2012, arguing that the challans cannot be considered as a pre-deposit against the show cause notice. However, the reply does not provide any other reason for this doubt, and it is only based on the fact that the payment was made after the issuance of the show cause notice. The Respondents did not comment on the letter dated 30 December 2019, where the Petitioners submitted the challans to the Principal Commissioner, CGS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
