9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 955X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sdiction of the respondent No. 3 - the location of the tax payer is crucial to determine the jurisdiction. As the petitioner and the related properties are situated within the jurisdiction of the respondent No. 3 by the date of institution of proceedings we find no discrepancy of jurisdiction of the respondent No. 3 in the proceedings. The other essential contention put-forth is that, as part of cause of action is time barred, the entire proceedings shall fail is also not found acceptable, since the tax liability and its effect is distinct for every assessment period and each lapse would give rise to separate cause of action - Further as the limitation is a mixed question of fact and law, to arrive at just conclusion fact finding is essential, therefore appropriate jurisdiction for scrutinizing the relevant material, would be the appeal. In addition, though the petitioner has asserted that a part of time barred cause of action would effect rest of the period has remained unsubstantiated with any legal position. The petitioner is statutory body. As per the Wakf Act, 1955 the petitioner has to maintain the finances of the wakf institutions by exercising superintendence over the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g service tax with interest and equivalent amount of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 (for short the Act ) from the Wakf Board. 3.2 The petitioner-Waqf Board in its reply dated 25.11.2020 to the show cause notice claimed that it has no property nor given any property for lease/rent for commercial purpose. That apart, the waqf properties are in the names of the institutions or Mutawalli or managing committee or trust and so on and the petitioner/Waqf Board will only have a share to the extent of 7%, out of which 1% would be paid to the Central Waqf Council. Above all, they are exempted from payment of service tax in terms of Entry No. 5 of Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012 ST dated 20.06.2012. 3.3 However the respondent No. 3/the Principal Commissioner of Central Tax, GST Commissionerate, Hyderabad had passed the impugned order on 29.10.2021 confirming the tax demand of Rs. 4,42,52,386/- with interest and equivalent amount of penalty. Thus, this writ petition. Pleadings : 4.1 Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Mr. K.G. Krishna Murthy assailing the impugned order would submit that the impugned order has been passed without jurisdiction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partment Mr. Dominic Fernandes would submit that the respondent No. 3 had considered the objections of the petitioner and by an elaborate discussion and negated the contentions raised by the petitioner. Nonetheless as the order is appealable under Section 86(1) of the Act seeking remedy in writ petition is inapposite and this Court in similar circumstances and also where the aspect of limitation has been challenged, directed the petitioners to recourse of an appeal. However in regard to jurisdiction he submits that after the States reorganization, as the properties are within the territorial jurisdiction, initiation of proceedings by the respondent No. 3 is perfectly justified. It is evident by the materials that the petitioner evaded the obligation to pay the tax by not even registering itself and without furnishing any information to the authority, these aspects are sufficient to establish the petitioner s attempt to suppress the facts of providing and receiving taxable services and the liability. Therefore, invocation of the extended period on the ground of suppression of the material facts is justified. The petitioner is an apex body managing the waqf properties and the disp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 3 by the date of institution of proceedings we find no discrepancy of jurisdiction of the respondent No. 3 in the proceedings. 9. The other essential contention put-forth is that, as part of cause of action is time barred, the entire proceedings shall fail is also not found acceptable, since the tax liability and its effect is distinct for every assessment period and each lapse would give rise to separate cause of action. Though the plea of the petitioner is taken as it is, the liability in the consolidated notice has to be examined distinctly and merely on premise that one part of check period is time barred, disregarding the entire period, though within limitation would be untenable. Further as the limitation is a mixed question of fact and law, to arrive at just conclusion fact finding is essential, therefore appropriate jurisdiction for scrutinizing the relevant material, would be the appeal. In addition, though the petitioner has asserted that a part of time barred cause of action would effect rest of the period has remained unsubstantiated with any legal position. 10. The discord regarding invocation of proviso of Section 73(1) of the Act for invocation of extended ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
