2017 (11) TMI 1522 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – [2017] 1 GSTL 18 (Mad) – Demand of service tax – adjudication of case after the Scheme of Arrangement – sick unit – Held that: – 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 legal issue raised by the petitioner, it may even lead to dropping of proceedings. Therefore, necessarily, there should be an adjudication.
–
The prayer sought for by the petitioner to quash the impugned show cause notice cannot be granted, as it is premature – writ petition is dismissed as premature. – Writ Petition No.29588 of 2017 & WMP.No.31867 of 2017 Dated:- 20-11-2017 – T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioner : Mr.N.Prasad For the Respondents : Mr.V.Sundar
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ovides for an effective date as 01.4.1999. 3. On 31.3.2005, the second respondent passed an Order-in-Original, which was with reference to the show cause notices dated 04.6.1993 and 03.6.1993, claiming service tax and other charges for the period November 1992 as well as December 1992 and January 1993 respectively. By the order dated 31.3.2005, the second respondent confirmed the demand in the show cause notices and directed payment of ₹ 91,74,660/- and imposed a penalty of ₹ 25 lakhs. 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 ₹ 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
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
g the earlier stand that the petitioner is liable to pay the dues, failing which, the first respondent informed the petitioner that appropriate action will be initiated under Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Finance Act, 1994 and the Rules made thereunder. On receipt of the same, the petitioner gave their objections dated 10.11.2017. 7. These facts clearly show that the first respondent is yet to adjudicate the petitioner's case and that the matter is still at the stage 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
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =