- (1.) By this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 07.08.2019 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Division-III, Lucknow apart from the order dated 20.03.2018 and other orders passed earlier to it. It includes challenge to recovery certificate dated 20.03.2019.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has given reference of two petitions earlier preferred before this Court. The last writ petition filed by this Court was disposed of by the order dated 02.07.2019 with direction to the respondents to consider the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 74 of the Finance Act, 1994. It is in pursuance to the said direction, the impugned order dated 07.08.2019 has been passed. The learned Authority did not find a case for rectification of error, as no error on the face of the record could be shown. It was found that during the course of investigation and even in adjudication proceedings, the assessee did not disclose value of the taxable service provided by it and tax paid thereon. No document was filed to substantiate the arguments and otherwise they did not appear before the Adjudicating Authority, as observed while giving brief facts of the case. Accordingly, the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 74 of the Finance Act, 1994 has been dismissed.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application under Section 74 of the Finance Act, 1994 was tenable in the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner firm was not liable for 100% service tax, yet it has been imposed. It is despite submission of necessary documents. The Assessing Authority failed to note all the relevant facts while passing the order and accordingly rectification application should have been entertained by the authority concerned. Reference of notification has also been given to show that a erroneous interpretation has been taken by the competent authority while passing the order adverse to the petitioner.;