News Update

India, China hold fresh dialogue for complete disengagement on Western borders: MEAThakur says India is prepared for 2036 OlympicsCBDT substitutes Form in ITR-5EV Revolution: Lessons for India to learn from US and China!London court green-signals auction of luxury apartment of fugitive Nirav ModiGovt consults RBI; finalises borrowing plan for first half of FY 2024-25Gadkari says Farmers’ protest is politically-motivatedVP calls upon women entrepreneurs to be 'Vocal for Local'America offers USD 10 mn bounty for information on ‘Blackcat’ hackers after UnitedHealth gets hitI-T- The order of the ITSC can only be reopened in cases of fraud or misrepresentation: HC8 persons including Hezbollah militants killed in Israeli strike on LebanonI-T - Income so surrendered on account of investment in excess stock during course of survey cannot be brought to tax under deeming provisions of section 69B: ITATMacron pillories EU-South Africa trade deal; calls it ‘really bad’ in BrazilI-T-Power of revision need not be exercised where facts do not reveal any lack of enquiry by AO into relevant issue & when twin requirements of order being erroneous as well as prejudicial to Revenue's interests, are not satisfied: ITATThailand’s Lower House okays Bill to legitimise same-sex marriageI-T -Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed where an assessee claims deduction u/s 80P while being ineligible therefor, but being under the bona fide impression of being eligible for such benefit : ITATYellen warns China against clean energy dumpingCus - Enhancement of declared value of imported goods is not tenable, where Department adduces no material to show how the enhanced value was computed & where no cogent rationale is made out for rejecting declared value: CESTATMilky Way’s central black hole - Twisted magnetic field observedCus - Assessee has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that goods in question imported under air way bills/bills of entry were in fact filed by him and hence the only natural corollary available to Revenue is confiscation of same: CESTATSmall investors help Trump Media’s valuation skyrocket to USD 13 billionST - When the facts are in the knowledge of department subsequent SCN alleging suppression cannot be issued and entire demand was found beyond normal period of limitation: CESTATFM Nirmala Sitharaman declines to contest LS elections as she has no fundsST - Tripura State Rifles not required to pay Service Tax under heading of Security Services, as it is is not engaged in business of providing security services: CESTATJustice Ritu Raj Awasthi joins as Judicial member of LokpalCX - Clandestine removal alleged based on consumption of raw inputs and heightened electricity usage - Tax demands based on third party statements but without permitting cross examination of deponents; case remanded to allow this exercise: CESTAT
 
ST - Limitation is essentially a question of fact - since disputed question of facts are to be examined, matter has to be agitated before Tribunal: High Court

By TIOL News Service

CHENNAI, SEPT 27, 2016: THE petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Commissioner(A) which confirmed the order passed by the adjudicating authority.

TheHigh Court raised an issue as to why the petitioner has not availed the Appeal remedy available to them in terms of Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994.

To this,the petitioner submitted that the impugned proceedings were initiated by the respondent departmentby invoking the extended period of limitation, which is not invocable in the petitioner's case.

It is further vehemently contended that though in the show-cause notice, in paragraph No. 5.1 there is an averment as to why the extended period is being invoked, in the Order-in-Original there is no finding to the said effect and this defect was not rectified by the Appellate Authority and as this defect goes to the root of the matter, both the impugned orders are liable for interference by the High Court exercising Writ Jurisdiction.

The High Court observed -

++ Question of limitation in these matters, especially, in Central Excise and Service Tax matters is not essentially a pure question of law, but a mixed question of fact and law. Therefore, question whether extended period of limitation could be invoked or not is essentially a question of fact.

++ The Appellate remedy provided under the Act before the CESTAT is not only an efficacious, but an effective remedy and the CESTAT is entitled to appreciate and re-appreciate the facts and, therefore, there is no justification on the part of the petitioner to bypass the Appeal remedy, more particularly, on the only ground raised by the petitioner before this Court which is purely a question of fact.

++ It is not in dispute that the basis of the show-cause notice was set out in the impugned order that deliberately the petitioner did not disclose the fact of availment of Input Service Credit of exempted service.

++ In the case on hand there is no allegation of fraud or collusion and the case against the petitioner is brought under Clause (c) to (e) in the proviso under Section 73(1), viz., willful misstatement, suppression of facts, contravention of the provisions with intent to evade payment of service tax.

++ But for the investigation by the SIT the wrong availment of Cenvat Credit would not have come to light and these facts would disclose that the petitioner did not disclose the facts with intention to avail ineligible Cenvat Credit and to evade payment of service tax.

++ The second respondent while adjudicating the show cause notice has rendered factual findings to justify the proposal in the show cause notice as well as regarding the conduct of the petitioner being deliberate in not disclosing the facts.

++ To ascertain as to whether there was willful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of the provisions of the Act or the Cenvat Credit Rules with intent to evade payment of service tax is essentially and purely a question of fact, which has to be agitated before the Tribunal.

++ Therefore, this is not a case where this Court can straight away interfere by exercising its power under Writ Jurisdiction, since disputed question of facts are to be examined while considering the validity and correctness of the impugned order.

Concluding that the petitioner should avail the Appeal remedy available under the Act, the Writ Petition was dismissed as not maintainable.

(See 2016-TIOL-2252-HC-MAD-ST )


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

AR not Afar by SK Rahman

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri Shailendra Kumar, Trustee, TIOL Trust, giving welcome speech at TIOL Awards 2023




Shri M C Joshi, Former Chairman, CBDT




Address by Shri Buggana Rajendranath, Hon'ble Finance Minister of Andhra Pradesh at TIOL Awards 2023