MACK INSURANCE AUXILIARY SERVICES (P) LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX
AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS
Mack Insurance Auxiliary Services (P) Ltd.
COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX
Click here to view full judgement.
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. -
(1.) THE applicant filed this application under Section 96C of the Finance Act, 1994 (for short "the Service Tax Law"). The office of the Authority pointed out defects and consequently a notice was issued to the applicant to show cause as to why the application should not be rejected. Para 2 of the notice reads as under:
(2.) THE Authority is tentatively of the view that the said application is liable to be rejected on the following two grounds:
(a) that in terms of Section 96A (b) of the Act it appears that you do not satisfy the requirements of being an applicant;
(ii) the questions raised by you do not appear to be covered under any of the clauses of Section 96C (2) of the Finance Act, 1994.
2. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the show cause notice and stated the reply would be filed at the time of hearing of the application.
Mr. Deepak Bansal, representative of the applicant, filed the reply. Para 3 of the reply reads as follows:
At the ousted we tend to agree with you that as per Section 96 A (C) and 96 C(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, we do not strictly fall in the category of organization who can seek advance ruling.
(3.) IN view of the reply quoted above, grounds (i) & (ii) in the show cause notice have to be confirmed.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.