2016 (7) TMI 305 - HC - Service Tax

Challenge to the show cause notice - Maintainability of writ petition - learned Single Judge dismissed the petition 2015 (4) TMI 1128 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT - appellant submitted that the show cause notice issued by first respondent is one without jurisdiction and same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. - Held that - On perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge we do not find any illegality or material irregularity nor any good ground as such made out by the appellants to consider the reliefs sought in the appeals for the reason that the Writ Petitions filed by the petitioner are dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner/appellant to file reply or objections to show cause notice within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the said order. Further it emerges that they have filed a reply to the show cause notice before the first respondent. Therefore we do not find any justification or good ground as such made out by the appellant to consider the relief sought for by the appellant nor the appellant has made out any good ground to entertain the relief sought in Writ Appeal. - Petition dismissed. - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to show cause notice for service tax, education cess, and higher education cess for the period 2009-2012.

Analysis:
The writ appeals were filed to challenge the correctness of the order passed by the Single Judge regarding the show cause notice dated 14.10.2015. The petitioners questioned the demand of &8377; 10,57,35,977 for service tax and related cesses for the period 2009-2012 under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions but allowed the petitioners to file a reply or objections to the show cause notice within two weeks. The appellants then filed these writ appeals, claiming the show cause notice was without jurisdiction.

The counsel for the appellants argued that the show cause notice lacked jurisdiction and should not be upheld. They had already filed a reply to the notice before the competent authority, pending adjudication. The High Court observed that there was no illegality or material irregularity in the Single Judge's order. The appellants were given the opportunity to respond to the notice, and they had already done so before the first respondent. The court found no valid grounds to entertain the relief sought in the writ appeals.

The High Court directed the first respondent to consider the reply filed by the appellant and dispose of it promptly after providing a fair hearing to both parties. The writ appeals were disposed of with these observations. As the appeals were dismissed on merits, the relief sought in I.A.1/2015 was no longer relevant and was dismissed as infructuous.