T.M.Ijas v. The Union Of India
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/16TH MAGHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 33699 of 2014 (J) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):
---------------- T.M.IJAS, THANNICKAL HOUSE, AZAD ROAD, KALOOR KOCHI 682 017 BY ADVS.SRI.M.V.BOSE SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN SMT.NISHA BOSE RESPONDENT(S):
--------------- 1.UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO FINANCE MINISTRY OF FINANCE (DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE) NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI 110001
2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS & SERVICE TAX OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE COCHIN COMMISSIONERATE, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING I.S PRESS ROAD, COCHIN 682 018 R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL R2 BY ADV. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE,SC,CEN.BOARD OF EXCIS R BY SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL,SC,CB EX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 33699 of 2014 (J) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------- EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 18-04-2007 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE STATE OF KERALA AND THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 31-3-2009 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE STATE OF KERALA AND THE PETITIONER EXHBIIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO 152/3/2012-ST,DATED 22/02/2012 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE CUSTOMS,NEW DELHI EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS DATED 22.8.2013 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT,DATED 05-09-2013,RECORDED BY THE CONCERNED AUTHORITY EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 7-10-2014 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 6-11-2014 FURNISHED BY THE PETITIONER RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:NIL ------------------------ //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
........................................................ ......................................................... Dated this the 5th day of February, 2015
JUDGMENT
The petitioner who was engaged in the collection of toll, on behalf of the Government, is aggrieved by Ext.P6 show cause notice that has been issued to him by the 2nd respondent, demanding service tax as applicable to business auxiliary service in respect of alleged services rendered by him to the Government. In the writ petition, the petitioner impugns the said show cause notice, inter alia, on the ground of jurisdiction stating that the levy of service tax, as applicable to business auxiliary services, is not attracted in the petitioner's case and secondly, that the show cause ought to have been issued within a period of one year which is the normal period of limitation under the Finance Act, 1994, as amended, and further that the extended period of limitation could not have been invoked against him.
2. I have heard Sri.Vinod Madhavan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.John Varghese, the learned Standing counsel
for the respondents.
3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I find that although the petitioner has raised various contentions in the writ petition, with regard to Ext.P1 show cause notice that has been issued to him, I do not feel that this is a case which necessitates the interference by this Court, with Ext.P6 show cause notice issued to the petitioner by 2nd the respondent. It is trite that this Court will not interfere with a show cause, save in limited circumstances such as where the notice is seen to have been issued by an authority that does not have jurisdiction and where the notice is issued beyond the maximum period of limitation prescribed under the statute.
In as much as in the instant case, I do not find any such irregularity, I feel the petitioner must be relegated to the remedy of pursuing Ext.P7 reply, already filed by him to the show cause notice, and getting the matter adjudicated before the 2nd respondent. Accordingly, without expressing any comment on the merits of the issue or with regard to the petitioners contentions with regard to limitation, I relegate the petitioner to the remedy of pursuing Ext.P6 show cause notice before the 2nd respondent and getting the matter adjudicated before him.
The writ petition, in its challenge against Ext.P6 show cause notice, is dismissed as not maintainable.
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE mns/