In this case, the service tax itself was concededly paid on 3.3.2009, i.e., before the show cause notice which was issued on 12.3.2009. The Order in Original confirmed the said demand for Rs. 3,54,37,986/- which had been so deposited.
It is not open to the petitioner to challenge the notice of attachment of immovable property as she is not the owner of the property as per her claim. If the notice has been wrongly issued to the petitioner, it is open to the petitioner to give a representation to the respondent authority setting out the details of the transaction that has taken place as above.
Facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the business of manufacturing electrical goods. It is having its one unit at Mandideep, District Raisen and another at Parwanoo, District Sonal (H.P.). The appellant’s unit at Mandideep is manufacturing electrical goods which are used in the distribution/transmission of power, while its Parwanoo unit is manufacturing electrical goods which are used in generation of the power.
Neither section 529 nor section 529A of the Act mandate that to claim priority and preferential payment under section 529A the secured creditors must join winding up and cannot stand outside the winding up and/or it must relinquish its security.
I have gone through the papers and the previous orders passed by this Court. It is found from the order sheet that the respondent himself has admitted the debt and he filed memo and further his memo again reflected in the joint memo filed and based on the post dated cheques issued in terms of the memo/joint memo, the petition was closed. The post dated cheques came to be dishonoured.
From such exchange of information between the Assessing Officer and the assessee, we need to gather whether the question of taxability of a receipt of Rs. 5,56,000/- from the members by the petitioner was under consideration by the Assessing Officer.
There has to be a sanctity to the order of Court otherwise the Court orders would be meaningless. An order of the Court may be set aside by a higher Court. A Court of coordinate jurisdiction should ordinarily not recall the order of another learned Judge unless and until there was an ex facie apparent error on the face of the record. Moreover, if it was to be done, it should be done by the same Judge if he was available.
Mr. A. Shankar, learned counsel for the assessee has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this appeal at this point of time pointing out that the revenue that is involved is not more than Rs. 2,00,000/- and therefore, in terms of board Circular No. 2/05, dated 24.10.2005 the appeal should not be entertained.
It was envisaged between the assessee and GAIL that gas would be supplied by GAIL to the assessee at the receiving point of the assessee’s factory. For such purpose GAIL would be laying down its pipelines and other equipments and would maintain such paraphernalia
In the instant case, the contributors, namely, the members of the assessee made contributions, which have been kept in fixed deposit with third party banks and those third party banks have contributed to the members fund. Accordingly, the members fund have been expanded not by the contributors/members, but by a third party.
