Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
ARUN MONGA, YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT
Hazi A.P. Bava And Company – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner, Central Excise And Goods And Service Tax, Commissionerate – Respondent
ORDER :
Arun Monga, J
1. Above titled three writ petitions are being decided vide instant common order since a common assessment order dated 24.10.2019 passed by the Joint Commissioner, Central Excise and Goods and Service Tax qua three financial years i.e. 2007-2008, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011, whereby the additional demand of sum of Rs. 81,46,056/-, Rs. 1,04,97,017/-, and Rs. 1,03,44,427/- respectively have been raised, is under challenge therein.
2. Succinctly speaking, the relevant facts of the case, shorn of unnecessary detail, are as follows:
FACTS
2.1 The petitioner is a proprietorship concern engaged in the fabrication and erection of structures at the sites of principal employers using materials supplied by them and is registered under the Service Tax laws. Pursuant to work orders dated 31.01.2007 issued by M/s Aditya Cement Limited and 06.01.2009 issued by M/s Prism Cement Limited, the petitioner carried out fabrication and erection works at their respective sites.
2.2 For the period April 2008 to March 2009, a show cause notice dated 01.10.2009 was issued alleging short payment of service tax amounting to Rs. 42,60,123/- on the premise that fabrication formed part of “erection, c
The court emphasized timely adjudication of tax matters under Section 73(4B) of the Finance Act, affirming that prolonged departmental delays undermine fairness and legality.
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.
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....
Court held that tax demands require adherence to statutory limits, and if payment is made prior to notice issuance, penalties are not justified.
Extended limitation period for tax demands requires evidence of deliberate suppression or intent to evade tax; mere non-payment is insufficient.
Composite show-cause notices covering multiple financial years under CGST/KGST Act are illegal as assessments must pertain to individual years, respecting statutory limitations and ensuring natural j....
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
