TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 015-ST dated 01.03.2015 or not - HELD THAT:- This Writ Petition is premature and is therefore liable to be dismissed. The second respondent has issued the detailed Show Cause cum Demand Notice which may indicate the predisposition of mind in the said notice. The petitioner shall therefore file a detailed reply giving reason as to why the petitioner should not be held liable to pay the service tax for the service rendered by him by putting up the rail linings in the premises of the third and fourth respondents on behalf of the fifth and sixth respondents. This Writ Petition stands disposed of. - Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Saravanan For the Petitioner : Mr.N.Subramaniyan For the R1 : Mr.K.Govindarajan Deputy Solicitor General of India For t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Finance Act, 1994 for their failure to furnish the documents summoned under Section 83 of the Act read with Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944; vi. penalty should not be imposed on him under section 77(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 for contravention of the provisions of Section 70 of the Act inasmuch as they did not correctly assess and declare the same in their ST-3 return; vii. penalty should not be imposed on him under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 for suppression and contravention of the Act and the Rules with an intention to evade payment of service tax. 3. The petitioner has also been issued with Annexure to the said impugned Show Cause cum Demand Notice. 4. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cause cum Demand Notice, the second respondent has come to a conclusion and therefore, the adjudication of the aforesaid Show Cause cum Demand Notice dated 23.12.2020 would be a mere empty formality and therefore, the impugned Show Cause cum Demand Notice dated 23.12.2020 is liable to be quashed. 7. Opposing the prayer, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for the first respondent would submit that this Writ Petition is premature and is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that the petitioner cannot preempt the adjudication proceedings by filing this Writ Petition. In this connection, he placed reliance on the following decisions: i. Union of India Vs. Hindalco Industries , 2003 (153) E.L.T. 481 (SC). ii. M/s.Metal Weld Electro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... linings in the premises of the third and fourth respondents on behalf of the fifth and sixth respondents. 11. The impugned Show Cause cum Demand Notice is dated 23.12.2020. Considering the same, I direct the petitioner to file reply within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. The second respondent is directed to adjudicate the Show Cause cum Demand Notice preferably within a period of 30 days thereafter. Needless to state, the petitioner shall be heard before passing the order and the orders to be passed will have to be strictly in compliance with the law. 13. This Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
