Skip to main content

DGCEI Has Jurisdiction Over All Service Tax Assessees Throughout The Country

In NATIONAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED vs UNION OF INDIA, a petition was filed before the Delhi High Court by the National Building Construction Corporation Ltd. a Public Sector Undertaking, challenging a 2015 letter from the DGCEI, according permission to its additional director general of Lucknow zone to probe tax evasion cases of all NBCC branches. NBCC has allegedly failed to pay service tax on the Project Management Consultancy Charge and also for quashing of notice/summons issued to it in January this year, for production of documents and details, issued by DGCEI’s assistant director of Meerut unit, contending that they were “unwarranted and arbitrary”. NBCC has not opted for centralized registration for service tax purposes, and has 88 service tax registrations in different Commissionerates and the primary issue raised by the NBCC was whether the DGCEI  can centralize investigation with DGCEI, Lucknow at one place with all India jurisdiction, though the petitioner has opted for 88 service tax registrations for different projects in different States.

Dismissing the petition, the Delhi High Court held that in the Central Excise Act there is no concept of territorial jurisdiction laid in the Statute itself and it was possible that more than one officer may have concurrent jurisdiction to adjudicate. The Board has wide discretion in power while fixing the local limit assigned to a Central Excise Officer and is therefore empowered to assign cases to one of the competent authorities. Local limit can be pan or all India.  

The provision permits and allows the Board to fix "local limits‟ and does not bar and prevent the Board from conferring all India jurisdiction. The Board is equally empowered to authorize centralised or pan India investigations to be undertaken by the Central Excise Officers. Central Excise Officers of DGCEI have all India jurisdiction and  can issue notices and enquire into the matters relating to service- tax against any assessee/ person even if the said person or assessee is registered with one or multiple Commissionerates.


Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Vanishing promoters and languishing shareholders

Over Rs 60,000 crore of shareholders’ wealth is stuck in 1,450 companies suspended by the stock exchanges. More importantly, near 100 per cent pledging of promoter holding appears to be common in many of these companies. This, almost rules out any chance of the companies bouncing back. The suspension is for non-compliance of the listing norms. Vanishing Companies - Definition As per the definition stipulated by SEBI, any listed company, which raised moneythrough initial public offer and, thereafter, stopped operations, did not file returnseither with the RoC or SEBI and did not exist on the registered premises wastermed as vanishing.There are provisions under Companies Act under which companies are termedvanishing companies on satisfying certain conditions. it is provided a companywould be deemed to be a vanishing company, if it satisfies all the conditions given below : a) Failed to file returns with Registrar of Companies (ROC) for a period of two years; b) Failed to fil
3 comments
Read more