9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isions of Section 37C(2) of the Central Excise Act, what would be relevant is the delivery of the show cause notice which was admittedly on 28 April 2022. Prima facie, the show cause notice appears to have been received by the petitioner on 28 April 2022, which is certainly not within five years as per the proviso below Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 would mandate, so as to fall within such extended period of limitation. On this it is not found that there would be any serious disputed question of fact, on which a finding on evidence would be required to be recorded - If the law provides that the show cause notice is rendered bad, if either not issued or received by assessee as provided under the said provision (Section 73), then cer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r proviso to Section 37C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as the same has been issued beyond the period of five years. 3. It appears to be not in dispute that on 23 August, 2016, Aqua Holding Investments Pvt. Ltd. (for short Aqua ) was incorporated with equal share holding by SPE Mauritius Holding Ltd. (for short SPEH ) and SPE Mauritius Investment Ltd. (for short SPEI ). On 31 August, 2016, under a Business Purchase Agreement, Sports Broadcasting Business of Taj TV Ltd. (for short TTL ) was sold to Aqua. Thus, both the buyer and seller were parties from Mauritius. On 28 February, 2017, under a Share Swap Agreement, the petitioner acquired all shares of Aqua from SPEH and SPEI in exchange of issuing its own shares to them and ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a under the Business Purchase Agreement dated 31 August 2016. 6. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has opposed this petition, to submit that the issue of limitation as urged on behalf of the petitioner, is a mixed question of law and facts and thus, it would necessarily fall for the consideration of Respondent No. 2 which can be raised by the petitioner in the reply to the show cause notice. In supporting such contention, Mr. Mishra has referred to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Orient Ship Agency Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs 2013 (296) E.L.T. 3 (Bom.). In regard to the contentions as urged on behalf of the petitioner that the show cause notice being barred by limitation, o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question of fact, on which a finding on evidence would be required to be recorded. 9. If the law provides that the show cause notice is rendered bad, if either not issued or received by assessee as provided under the said provision (Section 73), then certainly the issue would become a jurisdictional issue and any adjudication of the same would be unwarranted. 10. This apart, there are other issues as to whether, in the facts of the present case, the respondent could have invoked the reverse charge mechanism, so as to tax the petitioner retrospectively on the transaction which had taken place between TTL and Aqua, both of which were Mauritius based companies and beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the respondent Nos. 2 3. 11. F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
