The Delhi High Court on November 16, 2018, in the case of
National Building Construction Company Limited v. Union of India & Ors. has held that Central Excise Officers of Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI) have all India jurisdiction. Hence, even if a person/assessee is registered with one or more Commissionerates, the said officers can issue notices and enquire into the matters relating to service-tax against the said person/assessee.
A Bench comprising of
Justice Sanjiv Khanna and
Justice Pratibha M. Singh also held that pendency of proceedings under
Section 73 of the
Finance Act, 1994, does not restrain the issuance of notice under
Section 14 of the
Central Excise Act, 1944. The observation came while the court was hearing a petition filed by National Building Construction Corporation Ltd challenging a decision of Director General of Central Excise authorising the Additional Director General, DGCEI, Lucknow Zonal Unit, to investigate all the branches of the Petitioner regarding service tax evasion.
The petitioner is a corporation which has not opted for centralized registration for the purpose of service tax. It has 88 service tax registrations in different Commissionerates and therefore, separate service tax is filed and submitted for each registration. Notices were issued by various Commissionerates of Service Tax including that of Delhi, Allahabad, Patna, Noida etc. To investigate the case of service tax evasion by all branches of the corporation, the Additional Director General, Lucknow was authorized. In the meantime, the Office of Assistant Director, DGCEI, Meerut issued summons/notices to the corporation, asking for details and documents on all India basis under Section 14 of Central Excise Act, 1944. The corporation then filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court under
Article 226 of
Constitution of India challenging the authority of Additional Director General and also the notices issued. It contended that notices under Section 14 of the CE Act, 1944, cannot be issued when the proceedings/enquiry under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, are pending. The court delivering its verdict dismissed the petition. The court relied on a judgment in
Duncan Agro Industries Limited v. Union of Indiain which it was held that there is no territorial limitation laid in the CE Act, 1944, and more than one officer is envisaged in the statute to have territorial jurisdiction. Further, the court said that the pendency of proceedings under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, does not restrain the issuance of notice under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act.
Delhi High Court grants permission for up to 50 people to perform Namaz at the Nizamuddin Markaz Masjid during Ramadan
Judiciary
Apr 19, 2021
Shreyas Nair
(
Editor: Ekta Joshi
)
2 Shares
The Delhi High Court today allowed up to 50 people to offer namaz five times a day in Bangley Wali Masjid of Nizamuddin Markaz in Delhi, which has been closed since (March 23, 2020) last year due to several FIRs against a Tablighi Jamat congregation amid the Covid-19 pandemic due to the lack of any affidavit clarifying the Centre's and Delhi Police's positions on the issue as ordered by the court earlier.On a case brought by the Delhi Waqf Board requesting permission to hold prayers during...
Law Firm’s Plea for Termination of Senior Associate Dismissed by Delhi HC with Rs. 35,000 in costs
Legal Insiders
Apr 16, 2021
Tanya Sehrawat
(
Editor: Ekta Joshi
)
32 Shares
A Law firm had filed a plea in the Delhi High Court against its Senior Associate who wanted to resign. Instead of accepting her resignation, the firm terminated her services instead. The Court dismissed the same and imposed the penalty of Rs 35,000. A single-judge Bench of Justice Navin Chawla passed the order. The order ofAdditional Senior Civil Judge was challenged by the firm, Banana IP Counsels LLP, in which its application was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil...
349 Views
![Nizamuddin Markaz Can be Opened for Ramadan Subject to COVID19 Protocols, Center to Delhi High Court [READ ORDER]](https://lawstreet.co/secure/uploads/2021/04/lj_3728_delhi.jpg)
Facebook Comments