Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
VIBHA KANKANWADI, HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR
Suman Construction – Appellant
Versus
Union or India, through its Secretary, Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, Jeevan Deep Building, Sansad Marg, New Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.
1. The present writ petition preferred under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, a government-registered civil contractor, has approached this court seeking a declaration that the common order dated 20.03.2023, passed by the Additional Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Nagpur-1 for the financial years 2015-2016 and 2016-2017, is non-est and bad in law. The petitioner further seeks a declaration that in view of Notification No. 25/2012, dated 20.06.2012, issued by the Ministry of Finance under Section 93 of the FINANCE ACT , 1994, (for short “the Act”) the works of construction of roads executed for government departments are exempted from the levy of service tax. The petitioner also prays for quashing and setting aside the order dated 19.03.2025, passed by the Joint Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Aurangabad, rejecting his application for rectification of mistake under Section 74 of the Act.
2. The factual matrix is that the petitioner is engaged exclusively in executing civil construction contracts for various departments of the Government of Maharashtra, primarily for the construction of roads through th
The court emphasized that rectification under Section 74 of the Finance Act does not allow reopening of substantive issues already adjudicated, and the writ jurisdiction is discretionary when alterna....
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.
The court emphasized that claimants must substantiate their exemption claims with credible documentation, and the existence of an effective alternative remedy limits the exercise of writ jurisdiction....
Tax liability must be established based on actual statutory provisions, not presumptions; authorities cannot invoke extended limitation without finding willful non-disclosure.
Court held that tax demands require adherence to statutory limits, and if payment is made prior to notice issuance, penalties are not justified.
Service tax cannot be imposed merely on presumptions; actual liability must be proven, and the extended limitation period for tax recovery requires clear evidence of misconduct or evasion.
The court emphasized the importance of considering jurisdictional issues and adherence to binding notifications in tax matters.
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
