Bombay Excessive Courtroom overturns order imposing service tax in addition to curiosity and penalty levy towards Skoda Auto Volkswagen India
The Bombay Excessive Courtroom overturned the order imposing the service tax in addition to the levy of curiosity and penalties towards Skoda Auto Volkswagen India.
The petitioner, Skoda Auto Volkswagen India is a restricted legal responsibility firm engaged in import, manufacture, meeting and sale of motor autos and elements. It may be talked about that the petitioner is the successor firm to the merger plan between Skoda Auto India Personal Restricted, Volkswagen Group Gross sales India Personal Restricted and Volkswagen India Personal Restricted, sanctioned by the Nationwide Firm Legislation Tribunal, Mumbai Bench.
The Assistant Commissioner of Items and Companies Tax of Aurangabad City Division suggested the petitioner to show trigger on demand, alleging that there had been short-term fee of the service tax by the petitioner by not together with the quantity of TDS and the quantity of R&D ceased in fee of a royalty the quantity of which was quantified at 15.03 571.00 rupees for the interval from April 2016 to March 2017. The claimant additionally been known as upon to justify why curiosity and penalties shouldn’t be charged.
In keeping with the petitioner, after receipt of the unique of the order, a duplicate of it was handed over to the Deputy Director (Taxation), who was accountable for dealing with the case. The Deputy Director (Taxation) who was accountable for making ready and following up on the enchantment towards the unique order has ceased to serve the petitioner. In the course of the switch of accountability for the workplace, there was a scarcity of communication as to the final date for submitting the enchantment with the respondent authority.
By the contested order, the responding authority concluded that the applicant had acquired the unique order. The petitioner had the conventional limitation interval to file his enchantment till October 30, 2019. This era could possibly be prolonged by one month if the delay could possibly be satisfactorily defined. By including this month, the statute of limitations can be prolonged till November 30, 2019.
Nevertheless, this enchantment was filed on December 4, 2019, the date of receipt of the enchantment, which exceeded the prolonged limitation interval. Contemplating that the respondent authority didn’t have the facility to tolerate the delay past the interval of 1 month after the conventional limitation interval of two months, the enchantment was deemed to be time-barred. Due to this fact, the admission of guilt for delay was denied. Accordingly, the enchantment was dismissed for prescription with out coming into into the deserves.
The division bench of Decide Abhay Ahuja and Decide Ujjal Bhuyan held that the sending of the enchantment by the petitioner was throughout the prolonged limitation interval of 1 month and, subsequently, with out taking into consideration the request for pardon. of the petitioner’s delay, the respondent authority mustn’t have dismissed the foreclosures enchantment on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction to tolerate the delay past the one-month prolonged limitation interval.
Accordingly, the courtroom put aside the order made by the responding authority and remitted the matter again to the responding authority for reconsideration of the applicant’s request to forgive the delay in submitting the associated enchantment.
Subscribe to Taxscan AdFree to see the judgment
Help our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. We admire your suggestions at firstname.lastname@example.org