2018 (6) TMI 758 – CALCUTTA HIGH COURT – 2018 (12) G. S. T. L. 492 (Cal.) – Demand of service tax – obligation on the part of adjudicating authority to decide within one year from the date of SCN – validity of demand after repealing of service tax post GST – derailing of adjudication process – time limitation – Section 73(4B)(b) of the Finance Act, 1994 – Held that:- This Court finds that the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner, are based on hyper technicalities which, in the considered view of this Court, are not of a nature so as to derail the adjudication process. This Court is satisfied that the statutory provisions relied upon by Ld. ASG to take care of the contingencies sought to be exploited by the petitioner/assessee company for filibustering the adjudication.
–
In the backdrop of the recorded discussion surrounding the pure legal issues raised by the parties, affidavits are not invited. Allegations made are therefore deemed to be denied.
–
Petitio
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
claim under the new law but, could not so claim with the conclusion of arguments under the replaced law. Mr. Mittal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner takes this Court to the provisions of Section 4(B)(b) of the Finance Act, 1994 (Statutory Provisions Relating to Service Tax) by which the Authority responsible for determining tax should complete the adjudication within one year from the date of the Demand Notice. It is next argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner by taking this Court to the notes of the earlier adjudication by the Respondent No.2/being the Principal Commissioner of Service Tax-I, that the hearing stood completed on the 17th of March, 2017. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 4 (B) (b) (supra), the proceedings ought to have been completed by and within 13th May, 2017 since the notice of demand was issued on 13th May, 2016. Additionally, Learned Counsel points out, the Hearing/Adjudicating Authority under Section 4 (B) (b) (supra) was unde
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
r the provisions of the 2017 Act (supra). Learned ASG submits that the Respondent No.1 is the same Officer/individual as the Respondent No.2 now holding the designation of the Respondent No.1 after conversion of the designation of the Respondent No.2 to the Respondent No.1. Learned ASG argues that the GST Law was introduced in July, 2017 and, under the deeming provisions of Section 3 of the 2017 Act (supra), the Respondent No.1, in his earlier avatar as the Respondent No.2 conducted the hearing. However, since with the implementation of the GST Act, 2017 the designation of the Respondent No.2 was converted to that of the Respondent No.1, in exercise of the deeming provisions of Section 3 of the 2017 Act (supra) signed the final order. Accordingly, learned ASG submits that there is no infraction of the principles of natural justice or limitation qua the petitioner. Next, taking this Court to Section 174(2) of the 2017 Act, learned ASG argues that the Repeal and Savings provisions makes
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =