9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 977X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otice of the intention of the respondent no. 2, and that the impugned order was passed on different considerations, which were not disclosed in the show-cause notice - HELD THAT:- On a perusal of the impugned order-in-original, it cannot be said that the points urged by the petitioners in their reply were not considered. The respondent no. 2, inter alia, had dealt with the issue of limitation; discussed the effect of non-disclosure of correct taxable value of return and that in return the petitioners had declared values pertaining to their service tax liability on reverse charge basis only; gave its justification why the petitioners were liable to pay service tax despite the two exemption notifications referred to by the petitioners. Moreov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot functional - this writ petition is dismissed at the motion stage without issuing notice to the respondents. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs .23,82,02,812/-, which was disclosed in their income tax returns for financial year 2016-17. The respondent no. 2 had also proposed to invoke extended period of limitation as per proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Tax Act, 1994, on the ground of suppression of facts and non-filing of return. In reply dated 02.11.2021 filed by the petitioners, it was stated that vide notification no. 30/2011-S.T., w.e.f. 01.05.2011, health care services was exempt from service tax and after introduction of negative list regime, vide notification no. 25/2011-S.T., the levy of service tax was exempt on health care services rendered by clinical establishment and it was claimed that the petitioner no. 1 was not liable to pay service tax for the financial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eration of the notification by which levy of service tax was exempt on health care services rendered by clinical establishment and the contention of the petitioners that the petitioner no. 1 was not liable to pay service tax for the financial year 2016-17 was not properly addressed. Accordingly, by referring to stand taken in the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed for interim relief in terms of the prayer made in the writ petition. 7. The learned standing counsel for the respondents has submitted that the contentions raised by the petitioners were all addressed in the impugned order. It was submitted that by the impugned order, the respondent no. 2 had decided the case on facts and has extensively referred to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person; 27.3.(iii) Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where (a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged; 27.4.(iv) An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able value of return and that in return the petitioners had declared values pertaining to their service tax liability on reverse charge basis only; gave its justification why the petitioners were liable to pay service tax despite the two exemption notifications referred to by the petitioners. Moreover, although the respondent no. 2 took note of the copies of audited financial statement for financial year 2016-17 and ST-3 return filed for the period of April, 2016 to September, 2016 and October, 2016 to March, 2017 it was also observed to the effect that the petitioners had not responded to the communications made before issuing the show-cause notice to ascertain their tax liability. Accordingly, it was held that failure to disclose position ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
