2014 (5) TMI 1045

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s Mathew Nellimoottil, for the Respondent. JUDGMENT The petitioner, who is a works contractor and who is assessed under the Finance Act, 1994, claims refund of the amounts paid in lieu of the work carried on by him, on the ground, that works carried on with respect to exempted buildings was not leviable to Service Tax; and though tax was paid, it was on protest and it cannot be adjusted towards .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , would contend that in fact the show cause notice specifically speaks of considering the eligibility and appropriation towards the arrears and this alone would belie the contention of the petitioner. The learned Standing Counsel placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Special Director and another v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another - 2004 (164) E.L.T. 141 (S.C.), wherein .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t be said that the show cause notice is totally non est; nor that it is without jurisdiction. It is under a specific statutory provision that the petitioner has invoked the power of refund conferred on the authority. In such circumstance, this Court is not persuaded to interfere with the proceedings at this stage, especially since entertaining the writ petition would eventually result in either re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X