M/s. Ponni Sugars (Erode) Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner of CGST, The Additional Commissioner, office of the Commissioner of Central Excise, The Joint Commissioner, office of the Commissioner of Central Excise
Service Tax
2017 (11) TMI 1522 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – [2017] 1 GSTL 18 (Mad)
MADRAS HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 20-11-2017
Writ Petition No.29588 of 2017 & WMP.No.31867 of 2017
Service Tax
T. S. Sivagnanam, J.
For the Petitioner : Mr.N.Prasad
For the Respondents : Mr.V.Sundareshwaran
ORDER
Mr.V.Sundareshwaran, learned Senior Standing Counsel accepts notice for the respondents. Heard both.
2. The petitioner is a public limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having a factory at Erode involved in the manufacture of sugar. Originally, there was a company by name M/s.Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Limited, incorporated in the year 1982, owned the sugar factory at Erode. The said M/s.Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Limited also se
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
4. After about two years, the third respondent passed an Order-in-Original dated 12.2.2007, which was with reference to the show cause notice dated 20.8.2002 demanding service tax. By the said order, the third respondent confirmed the demand of Rs. 10,07,117/- under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 apart from demanding interest and levying penalty.
5. These two orders led to the issuance of a notice dated 13.6.2014 issued to the Superintendent of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Erode stating that the liability, which has been confirmed in Orders-in-Original dated 31.3.2005 and 12.2.2007, is liable to be paid by the petitioner, which being the existing transferee company. The petitioner submitted their reply dated 23.6.2014, which appears to be a brief reply largely relying upon the fact that the Official Liquidator has been appointed as the Provisional Liquidator of the company and that the assets vest with the Official Liquidator. This was followed by a further reply dat
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
of a show cause notice. The contentions raised by the petitioner are that the effective date as per the orders of the Company Court approving the Scheme of Arrangement is 01.4.1999 and as on the said date, the amounts are not due and payable.
8. On the other hand, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner company, being the successor, is liable to pay the amount, which was the subjective issue pursuant to the show cause notices issued in the year 1993 and 2002 respectively and that the contention raised by the petitioner that they are not liable to pay any amount is incorrect.
9. This Court does not wish to express any opinion at this juncture, as the first respondent is yet to adjudicate the case. The first respondent, having issued the impugned demand, has to consider the petitioner's objections and pass an order and it is open to the petitioner to prefer an appeal. On the other hand, if the first respondent is convinced on the leg
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =