9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 1468X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner under the Finance Act, 1994, in a most arbitrary manner without following the statutory provisions as well as the principles of natural justice. b) For issuance of appropriate direction restraining the respondents from taking any coercive action against the Petitioner for the recovery of any amount of service tax, interest and penalty, in terms of the impugned order-in-original bearing No. 42/ST/AC/BGP/2024-25 dated 09.07.2024 passed by Respondent No. 2 during the pendency of the present writ application. c) To pass any other order/orders in shape of a consequential relief to which the Petitioner may be found to be legally entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the instant case at hand." Brief Facts of the Case 3. It is the case of the petitioner that being a proprietorship firm, it is registered under the Service Tax Laws as a maintenance or repair service provider. A demand-cum-show cause notice (in short 'SCN') as contained in Annexure-P/1 to the writ application was issued on 05.09.2018 alleging that the petitioner had received certain amount from its customers but willfully escaped the proper assessment of taxable value with intent to evade the payment o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervice tax within a period of one year in the present case if at all he was justified in invoking the extended period of limitation of five years under proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 73 of the Act of 1994. 7. It is submitted that sub-section (4B) of Section 73 of the Act of 1994 has fallen for consideration before this Court in M/s Kanak Automobiles Private Limited vs. the Union of India and Others in CWJC No. 18398 of 2023. In the said case, a learned co-ordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to set aside the order passed by the Adjudicating Officer on the ground of huge delay in passing of the order even as there was no explanation to satisfy the Court with the reasons for not passing the order within the period of limitation. 8. Learned counsel has further relied upon a Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of L.R. Sharma & Co. v. Union of India reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Del 9031. In the said case, the Hon'ble Division Bench has taken a view that Section 73 (4B) was framed and introduced in the Finance Act to ensure effective administration of taxation and any inordinate delay by the Revenue itself in prosecuting its own cases cannot be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct of 1994, this Court finds that the Act of 1994 clearly stipulates the intention of the legislature in providing a time frame in the matter of determination of the amount of service tax due under sub-section (2) of Section 73 of the Act of 1994. Section 73 (1) with it's proviso and Section 73(4B) are being reproduced hereunder for a ready reference:- "SECTION 73. Recovery of service tax not levied or paid or short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded. - (1) Where any service tax has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded, the Central Excise Officer may, within 1[2[thirty months]] from the relevant date, serve notice on the person chargeable with the service tax which has not been levied or paid or which has been short-levied or short-paid or the person to whom such tax refund has erroneously been made, requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice : PROVIDED that where any service tax has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded by reason of - (a) fraud; or (b) collusion; or (c) wilful mis-statement; or (d) suppression of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said judgment is being reproduced hereunder:- "9. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of National Building Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India; 2019 (20) G.S.T.L. 515 (Del.) has held as under:- "20. ... Sub-section 4B to Section 73 of the Fin Act fixes the time or limitation period within which the Central Excise Officer has to adjudicate and decide the show cause notice. The time period fixed under Clause A or B is six months and one year respectively. Limitation period for passing of the adjudication order, described as Order-in-Original, starts from the date of notice under Sub-section 1 to Section 73 of the Fin Act."" 17. In L.R. Sharma (supra), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has referred the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 2017 (352) E.L.T. 455 (Guj.) in respect of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 wherein the Hon'ble Court has observed as under:- 27. Similarly, the High Court of Gujarat in Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (supra), in respect of Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944, had observed as under: "When the legislature has used the express ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
