9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... W.P.No.12716 of 2015, had been filed seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings of the respondent, dated 26.12.2014, and quash the same. 3. The Writ Petition, in W.P.No.12717 of 2015, had been filed seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings of the respondent, dated 26.12.2014, and quash the same. 4. The appellants are manufacturers and exporters in Hosieries and Textiles. They are exporting garments to various countries. In order to encourage such exports, the government of India had formed Special Economic Zones and the exporters have been granted exemption from Income Tax, Central Sales Tax and service tax. As such, no se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d granting liberty to the petitioners to file an appeal within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, giving such liberty to the petitioners, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed." Aggrieved by the common order passed by the learned single Judge, dated 29.4.2015, the Writ Appeals have been filed before this court. 6. Mr.Joseph Prabhakar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants had submitted that the learned single Judge had failed to exercise the discretionary powers available, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in favour of the appellants. The learned Judge ought not to have dismissed the Writ Pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed without giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the appellants. It had also been stated that the learned single Judge had failed to note that the impugned proceedings were contrary to Section 67 of the Finance Act, relating to the valuation of taxable services, for the charging of service tax. He had also failed to consider the fact that Section 66A cannot be invoked against the appellants, as the explanation to the said section states that a person carrying on business through a branch or agency, in any country, shall be treated as having a business establishment in that country. Further, the export activity of the appellants is covered under Section 65B(44)(a)(ii), which defines the term "service". 10. It had also been stated that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellants and we have also perused the relevant records available before this court. Even though a number of grounds had been raised by the appellants in the present Writ Appeals, the main thrust of the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants is that the respondent does not have the authority or the jurisdiction to pass the impugned proceedings, dated 26.12.2014. However, it is noted that the respondent had passed the impugned proceedings considering all the issues, which had been raised, before in an elaborate manner. It is also noted that the appellants had not raised any specific ground relating to jurisdiction of the respondent at the initial stage of the proceedings. Even otherwise, when ef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
