9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 931X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed by Respondent No. 3, as recorded below paragraph Nos. 3 and 4 hereinabove, it is obvious that Respondent No. 3 dismissed the claim of the deceased on the sole ground that adequate documents were not placed on record to indicate that the said Proprietary firm was eligible for an exemption under Clause 12 of the Notification dated 20.06.2012 - It is also recorded in the impugned order that had the Noticee produced the documents in support of the claim for exemption, the matter could have been looked at from that point of view. It was also recorded that the onus of placing such documents on record, lay on the claimant. It was finally recorded that as the relevant documents were not before the said Authority, the claim was rejected. The pending appeal, belatedly filed by the Petitioner on 30.05.2024, shall stand disposed off from the file of the Appellate Court - petition allowed in part. - RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Alok Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: Mr. D.S. Ladda, Advocate. PER COURT : 1. The Petitioner has put forth prayer Clauses (A), (B) and (C), as under:- (A) This Writ Petition may kindly be allowed by holdin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the noticee were exempted from Service Tax or to demand Service Tax of Rs. 86,38,193/- (Including Education Cess, Secondary Higher Education Cess, Krishi Kalyan Cess and Swatch Bharat Cess) for the FY 2015-16 2016-17 along with penalty under Section 70, Section 77, Section 78 and Interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. 22. Ongoing through the reply to SCN dated 17.03.2023, I find that the noticee submitted that their total turnover is to the Government of Maharashtra which is Exempted as per Notification 25/2012 dt. 20.06.2012 vide Sr No. 12 A. and further they requested to drop the impugned SCN. However, I find that the noticee falled to submit any documents in support of claiming exemption under Notification 25/2012 dt. 20.06.2012 vide Sr No. 12 A. It is settled legal position that to claim any sort of exemption, the onus is on the claimant only to prove and satisfy that they are rightly entitled to claim exemption. 23. Hon'ble Courts in several decisions have held that to avail tax exemption under a Notification, burden to proof for its entitlement is on the assessee claiming exemption. The reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court's ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder erstwhile Section 77 (1) (a) of the Finance Act, 1994 for failure to take registration under Section 69 of the Act read with Rule 4 of the Rules, 1994; 5. The grievance of the Petitioner has it s origin, in some what tragic circumstances. The Petitioner firm was a sole proprietary firm. The sole proprietor, the Petitioner s husband, committed suicide on 18.10.2022. His widow (present Petitioner), was not connected with the said proprietary firm. A show cause-cum-demand notice dated 24.04.2021 was issued under section 174 (2) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. Since the Proprietor had committed suicide, his wife has tendered a reply on 17.03.2023 setting out therein that the entire work assignment which the proprietary firm had acquired, was with the State Departments/State instrumentality. Hence, an exemption was sought under Clause 12 of the above referred notification, dated 20th June, 2012. 6. This contention was met with an order under Paragraph Nos. 21, 22 and 23 reproduced above. The authority has recorded in paragraph 20 that except the copy of the show cause notice and the reply dated 27.03.2023, no other record or documents have been placed on record. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record the statement of the Petitioner that the pending appeal be declared as disposed off as the delay cannot be condoned. The Appellate Authority shall, therefore, dispose off the said Appeal as rejected. 13. We find that the Petitioner s case stands on a better footing in comparison to the facts emerging in Sanjeev Desai (supra). The Petitioner was totally unconnected with the proprietary firm, which was operated by her husband. After he committed suicide, the Petitioner was in complete disarray and in a state of shock. The circumstances in which her husband passed away, created mental agony and she was not able to maintain her sanity for quite some time. After she noticed certain documents, which were received in the name of her deceased husband, since the Department was also oblivious of the demise of the Proprietor, that she submitted a reply to the notice. This led to the passing of the impugned order. On legal advise, she preferred an Appeal. 14. On the merits of the impugned order dated 28.08.2023, passed by Respondent No. 3, as recorded below paragraph Nos. 3 and 4 hereinabove, it is obvious that Respondent No. 3 dismissed the claim of the deceased on the sole ground that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
