9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1329X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SRI. P. C. SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UNIVERSITY For The RESPONDENTS : ADVS. SREELAL N. WARRIER, SC, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND AMP; CUSTOMS JUDGMENT After hearing Mr. P.C Sasidharan, on more than one occasion and also the learned Standing Counsel, Sri. Sreelal Warrier for respondents, this Court is disposing of the writ petition by this Order and particularly as follows. 2. The petitioner challenges Ext.P9 as not conforming to the judgment dated 22.03.2017 in W.P(C) No. 9708 of 2017. The operative portion of the judgment reads thus: "If at all, the respondent department University to produce the details with respect to the affiliation, was issued. If at all, the respondent department was of the opinion that there could be coverage o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as tentative consideration of objection raised by the petitioner on the applicability of service tax to its activities and further enquiry is proposed through notices-Exts.P13 and P14. Keeping in view the effort undertaken while passing the order in Ext.P9 this Court is convinced not to express a view accepting one contention or the other but to meet the ends of justice it is suffice to excerpt the following paragraphs from the statement filed by the respondents. "Regarding the ground N in the writ petition, it is submitted that the contention of the petitioner that without adjudicating the issue of coverage of tax with reference to the University, the respondent authority cannot proceed to take evidence or collect documents defies logic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons of the University and relevant facts and legal provisions, categorically held that "the University of Calicut is covered by the jurisdiction of the Finance Act 1994". Further, it can be seen from Paras 5 to 8 of Ext.P9, that the respondent authority had conducted a preliminary analysis of various contentions raised by the University in support of their claim that they are not liable to pay service tax and given reasons why the same may be invalid, leading to the observation in para 9 that prima facie, there appears to be a strong case against the University and, in order to examine the University's claims with regard to applicability of exemptions claimed or non-applicability of service tax, in detail, the University needs to furnis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onduct investigation and issue of show cause notice (if a reasonable case can be made out based on the investigation) to be adjudicated by the jurisdictional adjudicating authority. However, the respondent authority has examined the claims/contentions of the petitioner in the light of available facts and a legal analysis of the contentions, and observed in para-9 of Ext.P9 that prima facie, there appears to be a strong case against the University". 5. At the cost of repetition this Court refers to the stand of respondents that the chargeability of service tax is not finally decided by respondents and the petitioner avails the opportunity now afforded through Exts.P13 and P14 or this Court directs the Deputy Director, Kozhikode to enquire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
