Advertisement
Advertisement

― Advertisement ―

HomePage No.# 1/12 vs The Union Of India And 3 Ors on...

Page No.# 1/12 vs The Union Of India And 3 Ors on 12 March, 2026

ADVERTISEMENT

The challenge instituted in this petition has filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India pertains to an order dated 16.02.2022 passed by the
Assistant Commissioner, GST & Central Excise, Guwahati-I Division and the
subsequent order dated 06.12.2022 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals),
CGST whereby the appeal has been rejected.

SPONSORED

2. As per the facts projected, the petitioner is a Proprietor of M/s Kooltech
Systems (Assam) and has been provided the status of a service provider and
the relevant period in this case is the financial year 2014-2015. On 07.11.2019,
a demand-cum-Show Cause Notice was issued under Section 66 B, 68, 69 and
70 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rules 4, 5, 6 & 7 of the Service Tax
Rules, 1994 with the allegation that services worth Rs.23,47,386/- was
assessed for the concerned period and accordingly a demand of Rs.2,90,137/-
including cess was made. The petitioner had submitted a reply on 27.12.2019
whereby it had accepted the demand and agreed to pay the same. However,
the petitioner had also requested to be given the benefit of the Sabka
Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS).
Accordingly, the petitioner had filed SVLDRS-1, receipt of which was
Page No.# 3/12

acknowledged on 31.12.2019. Consequently, the Designated Committee, after
consideration of the matter had issued SVLDRS-3 and determined the amount
payable as Rs.1,16,054.80 which was paid on 20.01.2020. After such payment,
SVLDRS-4 which is the Discharge Certificate was issued on 04.02.2020.
According to the petitioner, after issuance of such Discharge Certificate which is
not in dispute, the matter had come to a conclusion. However, the Assistant-
Commissioner had passed an order in original on 16.02.2022 ex-parte and
confirmed tax of Rs. 2,90,137/- along with penalty under Sections 77 and 78. It
was recorded in the said order that the petitioner had failed to respond to the
show cause notice.



Source link