TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1460X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore, the admission is declined. Petition disposed off. - Writ Petition No. 1969/2014 - - - Dated:- 19-4-2017 - Mr. S. C. Sharma And Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, JJ Mr. N. Venkatraman, senior counsel appearing with Mr. Sumit Nema and Mr. Dhruv Bhattacharya, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Prasanna Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent ORDER S. C. Sharma, The petitioner before this Court, a limited Company having its manufacturing unit at village Mahatoli, Banmore 476444, Distt. Morena, has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by the Show Cause Notice dt. 11/10/2013 issued by the Addl. Director General, Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, Ahemdabad Zonal Unit directing the petitioner to show cause why service tax should not be levied towards the taxable service rendered from 01/04/2008 to 31/01/2013. Facts of the case reveal that the petitioner Company is having licence for a Brewery issued by the M. P. Excise Department in accordance with the statutory provisions as contained under the M. P. Excise Act, 2015. The petitioner Company has entered into a license agreement on 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10/2013. Various grounds have been raised while challenging Show Cause Notice, however, the fact remains that the Department has only issued a Show Cause Notice and the petitioner has been asked to explain within 30 days as to why service tax for taxable service rendered for the period w.e.f. 1/4/2004 to 31/1/2013 with interest and penalty cannot be imposed and recovered from the petitioner. The respondent Union of India has filed a detailed reply in the matter and has answered each and every ground raised by the petitioner, but the fact remains that the petitioner is against Show Cause Notice alone. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Special Director Vs. Mohd. Ghulam reported in (2004) 3 SCC 440, in paragraph 5 and 6 has held as under : 5. This Court in a large number of cases has deprecated the practice of the High Courts entertaining writ petitions questioning legality of the show cause notices stalling enquiries as proposed and retarding investigative process to find actual facts with the participation and in the presence of the parties. Unless, the High Court is satisfied that the show cause notice was totally non est in the eye of law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, have full opportunity to satisfy the authorities that there was no importation of banned goods which makes them liable to confiscation. In the light of the aforesaid judgment, the respondent shall certainly grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the petitioner shall have all opportunity to satisfy the authorities in respect of grounds raised in the Show Cause Notice and the present Writ Petition is certainly a premature Writ Petition. Not only this, in the case of Union of India Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in paragraph 13, 14, 15 and 16 has held as under : 13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge sheet or showcause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board vs. Ramdesh Kumar Singh and others JT 1995 (8) SC 331, Special Director and another vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another AIR 2004 SC 1467, Ulagappa and others vs. Divisional Commissioner, Mysore and others 2001(10) SCC 639, State of U.P. vs. Brahm Datt Sharma and another AIR 1987 SC 943 etc. 14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore this court has filed this present petition against the 'Panchanama' dated 19-05-2016, by which certain goods have been seized from the Excise Department. Seizure memo is under challenge. However, reply has been filed. Learned counsel for the respondent has drawn the attention of this court towards show cause notice issued u/s 124 of the Customs Act, 1962. His contention is that proceedings have been initiated under the Customs Act against the petitioner and the Customs Act, 1962 provides a complete mechanism for adjudicating the dispute between the parties. His further contention is that petition is premature. This court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does have a remedy to file reply to the show cause notice dated 02- 11-2016. The Apex Court in the case in the case of Union of India and Another Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana reported in 2006 (12) SCC 28, in paragraph 14 and 15 has held as under : 14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere showcause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show- ause notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
