M/S. Airforce Naval Housing Board Rep. ... vs Union Of India, & Ors on 24 November, 2022

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

M/S. Airforce Naval Housing Board Rep. ... vs Union Of India, & Ors on 24 November, 2022

Bench: Rajiv Shakdher

                          $~16
                          *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                          +      W.P.(C) 4626/2019

                                 M/S. AIRFORCE NAVAL HOUSING BOARD REP. BY GROUP
                                 CAPTAIN UPDESH SHARMA                    ......Petitioner
                                               Through: Ms Tuniha Sinha, Adv. with Samarth
                                                        Bajaj and Mr Vishal Agrawal, Advs.

                                                      versus

                                 UNION OF INDIA, & ORS.                               .....Respondents
                                               Through:             Mr Kirtiman Singh, CGSC with Mr
                                                                    Waize Ali Noor and Ms Kunjala
                                                                    Bhardwaj, Advs. for R-1/UOI
                                                                    Mr Anurag Ojha, Sr. Standing
                                                                    Counsel for respondent/revenue.
                                 CORAM:
                                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
                                 HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
                                               ORDER

% 24.11.2022 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]

1. Although a large part of averments made in the writ petition are devoted to the fact that no personal hearing was granted by the adjudicating authority before passing the order-in-original dated 08.06.2018, it appears that hearing was granted on 15.03.2018, pursuant to which information was sought from the petitioner via communication dated 05.04.2018.

2. The fact that the petitioner did not respond to the communication dated 05.04.2018 is evident on a perusal of the aforesaid order-in-original dated 08.06.2018.

W.P.(C) 4626/2019 Page 1 of 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHEHROZ ALAM Signing Date:09.12.2022 03:44:17

3. The record also shows, that qua the show-cause notice dated 07.10.2015, a reply was filed by the petitioner on 15.12.2015.

4. Mr Vishal Agrawal, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, states that if the petitioner is relegated to the statutory remedy by way of an appeal, it will have to make a pre-deposit of nearly rupees ten crores.

5. The submission of Mr Agrawal is, that the petitioner is a society which looks after the interests of defence personnel, both serving and retired, by providing them housing.

6. The record, as presently available, seems to disclose that service tax was sought to be levied by the respondents/revenue with regard to monies collected by the petitioner against "construction".

7. The period involved spans between 2010-2011 and 2013-2014.

8. The demand raised via the order-in-original is pegged at Rs. 153,14,85,847/- along with the penalty of an equivalent amount. 8.1 This penalty has been imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 ["the Act"].

9. Besides this, penalty amounting to Rs. 10,000/- has also been imposed under other provisions of the said Act.

10. To be noted, the petitioner was given the leeway of reduction in penalty by 25%, in case the demand was liquidated along with interest, within thirty days of the communication of the order.

11. The petitioner seeks to take the stand, that no service tax was leviable on the deposits received towards construction.

W.P.(C) 4626/2019 Page 2 of 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHEHROZ ALAM Signing Date:09.12.2022 03:44:17

12. The petitioner also claims, that the deposit was received for the period of forty years, and the figure taken into account while calculating the demand was based on the cumulative figure, and not the relevant annual receipts.

13. Before we proceed further in the matter, we would like the petitioner to file an affidavit, disclosing its net worth. 13.1 The affidavit in that behalf will be supported by a certificate of the statutory auditor of the petitioner.

13.2 The affidavit will be filed within the next three weeks. 13.3 A copy of the affidavit will be furnished to Mr Anurag Ojha, who appears on behalf of respondents/revenue.

14. The interim order dated 01.05.2019 will continue to operate till the disposal of the writ petition.

15. List the matter on 28.04.2023.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J TARA VITASTA GANJU, J NOVEMBER 24, 2022/SA Click here to check corrigendum, if any W.P.(C) 4626/2019 Page 3 of 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHEHROZ ALAM Signing Date:09.12.2022 03:44:17

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders