The short point involved is whether the petitioner is eligible for exemption from levy of service tax in terms of Section 66 D(g) of Finance Act, 1994. The matter remanded back to the authority to be heard afresh
Finance Act —Show Cause Notice –Exemption - The petitioners claimed exemption from levy of service tax in terms of Section 66 D(g) of Finance Act, 1994. The petitioner vide reply dated 10.03.2020 to the SCN dated 08.09.2019, sought exemption relying upon other cases of similarly placed assessees where exemption is stated to have been granted. The respondent counsel submitted that ratio of judgment quoted by the petitioner has neither been taken note of by the officer nor distinguished. Further, submitted that order is adverse to the assessee. The court observed that the respondent submission is not factually correct. In any event, it was incumbent upon the officer to have taken note of the order.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the authority to be heard afresh and a speaking order passed after taking note of the ratio of the order in Chennai Digital Print Advertising Private Limited in Order-in-Original No. C.No.IV/9/108/2016-GST Ch.N-Adj. Dated 11.09.2017 as well as any other order passed by co-ordinate officer on this issue. This exercise be completed within a period of eight (8) weeks.
The short point involved is whether the petitioner is eligible for exemption from levy of service tax in terms of Section 66 D(g) of Finance Act, 1994. The matter remanded back to the authority to be heard afresh
Finance Act —Show Cause Notice –Exemption - The petitioners claimed exemption from levy of service tax in terms of Section 66 D(g) of Finance Act, 1994. The petitioner vide reply dated 10.03.2020 to the SCN dated 08.09.2019, sought exemption relying upon other cases of similarly placed assessees where exemption is stated to have been granted. The respondent counsel submitted that ratio of judgment quoted by the petitioner has neither been taken note of by the officer nor distinguished. Further, submitted that order is adverse to the assessee. The court observed that the respondent submission is not factually correct. In any event, it was incumbent upon the officer to have taken note of the order.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the authority to be heard afresh and a speaking order passed after taking note of the ratio of the order in Chennai Digital Print Advertising Private Limited in Order-in-Original No. C.No.IV/9/108/2016-GST Ch.N-Adj. Dated 11.09.2017 as well as any other order passed by co-ordinate officer on this issue. This exercise be completed within a period of eight (8) weeks.