M/s. Indus Integrated Information Management Limited Versus Principal Commissioner of CGST & CS, Kolkata And Ors.
Service Tax
2018 (6) TMI 758 – CALCUTTA HIGH COURT – 2018 (12) G. S. T. L. 492 (Cal.)
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 20-12-2017
W.P. 26509 (W) of 2017
Service Tax
Mr. Subrata Talukdar, J.
For The Petitioner : Mr. J. K. Mittal Mr. Paritosh Sinha Ms. Aritra Chakraborty And Mr. Parag Chaturvedi
For The Respondent : Mr. Koushik Chanda Mr. Tarunjyoti Tewari And Mr. Somnath Ganguli Mr. Bhaskar Prosad Banerjee
ORDER
The short point of challenge in this writ petition is the final order of determination of demand dated 14th July, 2017 issued by the Respondent No.1/Principal Commissioner, Central Tax, Kolkata North CGST & CX, Commissionerate, Kolkata determining the Service Tax finally payable by the petitioner/Assessing Company along with interest and penalty.
During adjudication, the attention of this Court is drawn to its earlier order dated 29th Nove
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
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 under the lawful obligation to provide reasons for not concluding the proceedings within the period provided under Section 4 (B) (b) (supra). In the absence of such reasons, the order determining the demand dated 14th July, 2017 cannot be sustained.
The further point argued by Mr. Mittal is that the Respondent No.2 is the only officer who heard the petitioner and, therefore, the Demand having been decided by a different Respondent No.1, cannot be sustained. Relying on the Authority of AIR 1959 SC 308 learned Counsel argues that it is now trite law that the person who heard is the person who shall ultimately decide.
Arguing on behalf of the Respondents /Authority, Learned Additional Solicitor General (ASG), Mr. Kaushik Chanda takes this Court to the provisions of Secti
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ubmits 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 it abundantly clear vide 174(2) (e) thereof that the repeal and substitution of the law shall not effect any investigation, enquiry or verification.
Learned ASG therefore submits on the purposive interpretation of the legal provisions in the light of the deeming provisions under Section 3(supra) that it never was the intention of the legislature to frustrate a pending/continuing adjudication.
Having considered the submissions as well as the materials placed, 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
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =