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

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
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

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...
2 comments
Read more