9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 1474X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ences of setting aside the Show Cause Notices on the aspect of limitation. It is noted that it is on this restricted aspect notice is issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Prima facie, from the limited argument advanced by the Revenue and the issue being restricted to the limitation aspect, the mandatory nature of pre consultation is impliedly accepted by the Revenue. In these circumstances, it is deemed appropriate that since the issue is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and to avoid any further litigation, to list the petitions for hearing.
Since the arguable questions are raised, Rule in these petitions - the execution and operation of the impugned Show Causes Notices is stayed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that consultation with noticee before issuance of Show Cause Notice is mandatory for claim above fifty lakhs and it is an important steps towards trade facilitation and promoting voluntary compliance and to reduce the necessity of issuing Show Cause Notice. It is common ground that the demands made in these petitions are all above fifty lakhs. 4. Whether pre show cause consultation in the stipulated circumstances is mandatory or otherwise has fallen for consideration of various Courts. The learned Counsel for the parties have placed on record the following decisions : Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Principal Commissioner, Central Excise, Service Tax and Central Tax Commissioneate [2019 Law Suit (Del) 1485], Tube Investment of India Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E.LT. 16 (S.C.)], Nanya Imports & Exports Enterprises Versus Commr. of Cus. Chennai [2006 (197) E.L.T. 154 (S.C)], Chairman, Board of Mining Examination and Chief Inspector of Mines versus Ramjee [1977 LawSuit (SC) 71], Union of India Versus Bajaj Tempo Limited [1997 LawSuit (SC) 990], B P L Ltd. Versus State of Madhya Pradesh [2003 LawSuit (MP) 324], K. P.Varghese v. Income-tax Officer [[1981] 7 Taxman 13 (SC)], Raza Textiles Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer, Rampur [(1973) 1 Supreme Court Cases 633], ITW Signode India Ltd. Versus Collector of Central Tax [2003 (158) E.L.T. 403 (S.C.)], Phoenix Mills Ltd. Versus Union of India [2004 (168) E.L.T. 310 (Bom.)], Alpa Management Consultants P. Ltd. Versus Commr. of S.T. Bangalore [2007 (6) S.T.R. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bviate any objection in regard to limitation. Issue notice confined to the above issue, returnable in eight weeks". Consequently, the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of Back Office IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has taken note of the order dated 4 March 2019 and has passed certain directions remanding the matter to the Respondents. 6. Before us, one of the issue that is agitated is the consequences of setting aside the Show Cause Notices on the aspect of limitation. We note that it is on this restricted aspect notice is issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 7. Prima facie, from the limited argument advanced by the Revenue and the issue being restricted to the limitation aspect, the mandatory nature of pre consultation i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
