9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1094X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mstances which makes the present case exceptional. True it is that the petitioner was remiss in promptly replying to the show cause notice and had replied belatedly on 07.06.2022, after about 17 months of receipt of the show cause notice. However, the fact remains that if it was a matter of surrender of the premises specific registrations and a centralized service tax registration, the impugned order should have considered this aspect meticulously when prima faice, the petitioner had filed a return under the centralized service tax registration. As can be noticed from the impugned order though opportunity of hearing was extended to the petitioner it did not produce documentary evidence regarding the different premises/branches so as to enab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 22.12.2020 in respect of service tax registration number AAACS7220HST001. He would submit that in fact the petitioner-company was having separate registration for single premises. All of which were surrendered on 05.09.2014. A single centralized registration was obtained. Even returns were filed in respect of aggregate turnover of more than Rs. 39 Crore. The respondents were informed about this vide communication dated 30.08.2017. By the show cause notice dated 22.12.2020, the petitioner was called upon to explain as to why a service tax of Rs. 2,88,39,550/- shall not be demanded and recovered under Section 73 (1) of the Finance Act 1994 read with Section 6 of the Service Tax Rules 1994, in respect of the taxable services provided by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of India in the wake of availability of a statutory remedy. However, as we would point out herein after there apparently exist such extraordinary circumstances which makes the case before us exceptional. 8. As is being pointed out, the petitioner-company apparently had resorted to separate registration for single premises and after surrendering those on 05.09.2014 has obtained centralized service tax registration, which it received on 06.05.2014. Even there appears to be intimation given by it to the respondents on 07.05.2014. 9. True it is that the petitioner was remiss in promptly replying to the show cause notice and had replied belatedly on 07.06.2022, after about 17 months of receipt of the show cause notice. However, the fact remai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opportunity to justify the stand being taken in its reply dated 07.06.2022 by producing relevant record before respondent no.2. 13. Incidentally, even this would enable respondent no. 2 to specifically examine and demonstrate as to if the extended period up to five years over and above 30 months prescribed under Section 73 (1) can be legitimately invoked. The observations in paragraph no. 23 of the impugned order do not explicitly demonstrate as to how there was fraud or suppression of facts. 14. It is in light of the above state of affairs, in our considered view, it would be appropriate and in the interest of justice to quash and set aside the impugned order and relegate the matter to respondent no. 2 for taking a fresh decision by exten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
