Back
G. S. KULKARNI, KISHORE C. SANT
Adv. Pooja Patil – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commissioner, CGST and CX Division VI, Raigad Commissionerate – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
G.S. Kulkarni, J.
1. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assails an Order-in-Original dated 26th October, 2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, CGST and C. Excise, Raigad, whereby an amount of Rs.35,82,298/- towards service tax under the provisions of Section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, has been ordered to be recovered from the Petitioner interalia with interest and penalty. The operative part of the impugned order reads thus :-
| “ORDER (i) I confirm the Service Tax demand of Rs.35,82,298/- (Rupees Thirty Five lakh Eighty Two Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Eight Only) (including E. Cess SHE Cess, Swachh Bharat Cess and Krishi Kalyan Cess as and where applicable) under the proviso to Section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act, 2017) and the same should be recovered from M/s. Pooja Chandrashekhar Patil forthwith. (ii) I order recovery of Interest at appropriate rates and as applicable in force, on the demand confirmed at (I) above, under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 read |
The court emphasized the importance of considering jurisdictional issues and adherence to binding notifications in tax matters.
Service tax demands confirmed without valid service of notice violate natural justice principles, leading to appeal's success.
Proper service of notices is essential for upholding natural justice, and jurisdiction must be established based on the correct address of the party involved.
Court held that proper grounds for invoking extended limitation for tax demands must demonstrate intent to evade payment, and procedural fairness must be maintained in tax assessments.
Tax liability must be conclusively determined under the governing statute and cannot be established through inferences or analogies from third-party data. The invocation of extended limitation period....
Court held that tax demands require adherence to statutory limits, and if payment is made prior to notice issuance, penalties are not justified.
Writ petitions against quasi-judicial authorities are not maintainable if statutory remedies are available unless exceptional circumstances like natural justice violations are proven.
Tax liability must be established based on actual statutory provisions, not presumptions; authorities cannot invoke extended limitation without finding willful non-disclosure.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
