9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1094X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /NGP-I, dated 13.06.2024. 3. The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a company engaged in the business of providing various services like rent-a-cab, man power recruitment agency, repairs, restoration, decoration or any other service related to motor vehicle, renting of immovable property, etc. He submits that it was served with a show cause notice 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Constitution of India, more so in light of the statutory remedy of appeal available in terms of Section 86 of the Finance Act 1994 before the Custom Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. 7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the papers. In normal circumstances, indeed, this Court would be loath in exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution 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 05.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led the return and paid the tax under the centralized service tax registration. In absence of such particulars/documents that the decision was taken and the impugned order was passed confirming the show cause notice. 12. Since it is a matter of payment of service tax, in light of the aforementioned peculiar facts and circumstances, it would be appropriate if the petitioner is extended an 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
