Back
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
Ramnath Prasad – Appellant
Versus
Principal Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise – Respondent
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.—Heard Mr. D.V. Pathy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Sadashiv Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. K.N. Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General assisted by Mr. Anshuman Singh, learned Senior Standing Counsel, CGST & CX for the respondents.
2. This writ application has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:—
(i) the order dated 02.01.2024 (as contained in Annexure – P2) passed by the respondent no. 2 for the Period 2015 – 2016 and 2016 – 17 proposing levy of Service Tax, interest and penalty without a pre-show cause consultation as per Master Circular No. 1053/02/2017 – CX dated 10.03.2017 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs and subsequently clarified by Circular dated 19.11.2020 be set aside quashed.
(ii) the order dated 02.01.2024 (as contained in Annexure – P 2) passed by the respondent no. 1 for the Period 2015 – 2016 and 2016 – 17 imposing Service Tax, interest and penalty without consideration of the exemption Notification No. 25/2012 – Service Tax dated 20.06.2012 issued by the Central Government beyond the period of limitation being wholly without jurisdiction be set aside and quashed.
(iii) for granting any
The extended period of limitation under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 can only be invoked with allegations of fraud, collusion, wilful mis-statement, suppression of facts, or contravention o....
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.
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 held that a service tax demand order issued after the statutory time limit is invalid, emphasizing the necessity for timely adjudication in tax matters.
Extended limitation period for tax demands requires evidence of deliberate suppression or intent to evade tax; mere non-payment is insufficient.
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
