Allowed

Sachin Chemburkar v. Union of India and Anr.

Bombay HC2 Aug 2022WP/3240/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition challenging service tax enquiry proceedings. It held that pursuing these investigations served no purpose after the petitioner secured a discharge certificate confirming zero liability for the proprietorship concern.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition allowed and disposed of; Enquiry Proceedings initiated by officials of Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-II are quashed and set aside.

Sachin Chemburkar Vs Union of India and Anr. — Bombay HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 of 2 8.WP.3240.2021.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3240 OF 2021

¶4

Sachin ChemburkarPetitioner

¶5

versus

¶6

Union of India and anotherRespondents

¶7

Mr.Aditya Sharma with Mr.Irfan Khan i/by Ms.Sudha Dwivedi,
Advocate for petitioner.

¶8

Mr.Sham Walve with Mr.Dhananjay Deshmukh with Mrs.Sangeeta
Yadav, Advocate for respondent no.3.
Mr.A.R.Patil, APP, for State.

¶9

CORAM :PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

¶10

DATE :2nd August 2022

¶11

PC :

¶12

MANISH SURESH THATTE

¶13

Digitally signed by MANISH SURESH THATTE Date: 2022.08.04 10:56:32 +0530

¶14

1.The petitioner has challenged the proceedings initiated by
Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-II. The case of respondent is
that the petitioner was involved in evasion of service tax in
contravention of Finance Act, 1994 and rules made thereunder.
Enquiry was initiated by Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-II
and summons was issued u/s.14 of Central Excise Act, 1944, Section
108 of Customs Act, 1962 to appear before the Superintendent of
Service Tax, Mumbai-II and to give evidence on such matters
concerning enquiry and produce documents and records mentioned
in the schedule. After issuance of summons the petitioner was taken
in custody on 3rd July 2014 stating reasons that investigating officer
has reason to believe that petitioner is guilty of offence u/s.89 of
Finance Act 1994 r/w Section 90 of Finance Act, 1994. After
statutory period of 60 days, the investigating agency failed to file
complaint and petitioner was released on bail.

¶15

2 of 2 8.WP.3240.2021.doc

¶16

2.The petitioner contends that he has paid Rs.1.80 crores
towards service tax. He was in receipt of challan in that regard. He
has also received discharge certificate for full and final settlement of
tax dues under Section 127 of Finance Act, 2019 which formulated a
dispute resolutions scheme whereunder liability of proprietorship
concern of the present applicant is zero. The discharge certificate
has been annexed to this petition.

¶17

3. Learned advocate for petitioner submitted that officials of Service Tax Department have not initiated any complaint against petitioner or partnership firm.

¶18

4.In view of the discharge certificate dated 22nd January 2020
which indicate that full and final settlement of the tax dues has been
cleared by the petitioner, no purpose will be served by persuing the
impugned enquiry proceedings.

¶19

ORDER

¶20

(i) Writ Petition is allowed and disposed of;

¶21

(ii)Enquiry Proceedings initiated by officials of Commissioner of
Service Tax, Mumbai-II, bearing F.No.V/ST/HQ/Enq/GR-3/141/MII/
2012 are quashed and set aside.

¶22

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

¶23

MST

Sachin Chemburkar v. Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Chemburkar v. Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Okoye Cyprain Chinnasa Vs the State of Maharashtra

Imperial Techsol Priavate Limited and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Federal Bank Ltd. through Shalini Nimish Somaiya and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Akhilesh Arun Naik Vs the Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.

Rahul Dadasaheb Jagtap Vs the Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.

Mrs. Monica Sumit Ujjain Vs Sanchu M. Menon and Anr.