BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J.B.PARDIWALA
VENUS JEWEL – Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX-I MUMBAI – Respondent
J.B.PARDIWALA
1. By way of this writ application under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner a partnership concern, engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of cut and polished diamonds seeks to challenge the legality, validity and propriety of show-cause notice No.11/Commr./2011-12 issued by Commissioner, Service Tax-I, Mumbai, and thereby calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why total Service tax of Rs.4,10,47,026/- (including service tax Rs.3,98,87,631/-, Education Cess of Rs.7,97,752/- and Higher Secondary Education Cess of Rs.3,61,643/-) should not be recovered under the proviso to Section 73 Clause 1 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 68 and Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 3(iii) of the Taxation of Services (provided from Outside India and received in India) Rules, 2006 alongwith interest under Section 75 of the Act and penalty under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Act.
2. Facts shortly stated be thus:
2.1 The petitioner is a partnership concern engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of cut and polished diamonds. As per the case set up by the petitioner the rough diamonds are imported at Surat an
Alchemist Limited v. State Bank of Sikkim
Union of India v. Adani Exports Ltd. AIR 2002 SC 126
Rajendran Chingaravelu V. R. K. Mishra, Additional Commissioner of Income Tax and others
Union of India v. Adani Exports Ltd.
Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. V. Union of India
National Taxtile Corporation Ltd. and Others., V. Haribox Swalram and Others
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.