Stay abreast with the latest developments in the professional domain along with in-depth analysis through the monthly BCA Journal. Get access to an engaging library of researched publications from the BCAS stable.
Learn MoreLorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Learn MoreLorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Learn MoreA voluntary organisation established on 6th July 1949, BCAS has presently more than 9,000 members from all over the country. BCAS is a principle-centered and learning-oriented organisation promoting quality service and excellence in the profession of Chartered Accountancy.
Learn MoreLorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Learn MoreLorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Learn More
Facts:
The Revenue conducted search and collected a sum of Rs. 2 Crore from the petitioner. The petitioner contested that since they were not registered with the department and were not carrying out any activities within their jurisdiction, the search and collection of Rs. 2 Crore was arbitrary and illegal and thus they were entitled for the refund of amount paid.
The respondents argued that the petitioners collected Rs. 17 Crore which was further claimed as CENVAT by the service recipients and that the amount so paid voluntarily should not be returned and should be adjusted against service tax liability to mitigate the offence committed u/s. 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994.
Held:
Directing the respondents to return the amount paid, the Hon. High Court held that the collection of Rs. 2 crore during the search was not valid in the eyes of law. Although the collection was voluntary, the respondents did not prove that the petitioners were liable to pay service tax and that the tax cannot be collected without appropriate assessment order and without following the procedures established by the Law.