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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more