Kar. HC: De-Nomination of Chairman of Minorities Commission by Govt. Before Term is Not Arbitrary  ||  Delhi High Court: Question of Property Title Can’t be Decided by Forums Under Senior Citizens Act  ||  Jh. HC: Can’t Cancel Bail Unless There is Violation of Bail Conditions or Accused Impedes Fair Trial  ||  Guidelines Issued by Delhi High Court for Trial Court Judges to Decide Transfer Applications  ||  P&H HC: Presence of Magistrate Mandatory to Prove Compliance With Section 52A of the NDPS Act  ||  Meghalaya High Court: In a Sacred Relationship, Husband is the Property of the Wife and Vice Versa  ||  Kar HC: Disciplinary Authority Must Look Into Past Conduct of Workman While Passing Dismissal Order  ||  Ker. HC: Facts Indicating Special Knowledge Must be Estd. by Prosecution to Shift Burden of Proof  ||  Ker. HC: Facts Indicating Special Knowledge Must be Estd. by Prosecution to Shift Burden of Proof  ||  Ker. HC: Independent Evidence of Accomplice Sufficient in Itself to Sustain Conviction    

Skylark Hi-Tech Solution Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner, Service Tax Commissionerate - (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) (11 Nov 2019)

A decision on debatable point of law or fact cannot be corrected by way of rectification


Service Tax

Present order disposes of an application praying for rectification of mistake in final order. Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that, present Tribunal in the impugned final order had erred in not dealing with contentions of the Appellant as were made against impugned order-in-original.

It is submitted on behalf of the department that the impugned appeal has been allowed by way of remand. The demand of Service Tax has been confirmed on principle, however, quantification thereof has been given to the adjudicating authority below for denovo adjudication. Thus, all the grounds as raised by the appellant are not the subject matter of rectification of mistake. All contentions have duly been considered by this Tribunal in the said final order.

The show-cause notice proposing the impugned demand was served upon the Appellant observing that, the Appellant having a number of companies under its aegis and being run by Capt. T.C. Rao was availing payment of Service Tax by suppressing the full taxable amount collected from various clients who were receiving the services as that the security agency and manpower supply services from the appellant. The impugned final order after relying upon the decision in the case of Rajasthan Ex-servicemen Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur, which has also been confirmed by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has set aside the contention about show-cause notice being vague and arbitrary. The contention about show-cause notice being barred by time has also been duly considered. Finally, the contention that the demand on gross turnover of all the services provided by the appellant without bifurcation thereof has also been, specifically, dealt with as the matter has been remanded back for the quantification of the demand on the basis of financial year-wise receipt service tax value. The adjudicating authority is also directed to examine the balance-sheet and other statements.

Para-13 of the impugned final order which, in fact, has been quoted in the impugned application is itself sufficient to reflect that, all the contentions as were raised by the Appellant have duly been dealt with in the said final order. As far as the arbitrary/vagueness of a show-cause notice is concerned, the same is held to be correct in principle. The decision cannot be re-opened under the guise of rectification of mistake.

In M/s. SRF Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai, clarifies that a decision on debatable point of law or fact cannot be corrected by way of rectification. Otherwise also the impugned final order has remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority below for quantification of the demand. In view of the entire above discussion, there seems no error which is apparent of its record in the impugned final order. Application dismissed.

Relevant : Rajasthan Ex-Servicemen Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur MANU/CE/0136/2017


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved