Court directs speedy appeal hearing, emphasizes independence in decision-making, all issues can be raised during the appeal.

The Court declined to grant immediate reliefs but directed the second respondent Appellate Tribunal to hear and conclude the appeal within twelve weeks. It emphasized that all issues, including the larger bench referral, could be raised and decided during the appeal hearing. The Court clarified that the second respondent should independently assess the matters without being influenced by previous observations. The writ petition was ordered accordingly, with no costs incurred, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

---

---

Issues:
1. Quashing the order passed by the second respondent Appellate Tribunal and directing to hear the appeal filed by the petitioner.
2. Tax liability on works contract service and exemptions granted by the first respondent.
3. Show cause notice issued proposing tax demand, interest, and penalty.
4. Appeal against the Order-in-Original, waiver application, and stay of recovery.
5. Grounds raised before the second respondent Appellate Tribunal regarding tax levy on works contract service.
6. Binding nature of judgments from High Court of Karnataka and decisions of other Tribunals.
7. Request for referral to a larger bench for settling contentious issues.
8. Arguments presented by both parties regarding the interim nature of the impugned order.
9. Court's decision on granting reliefs and directing the second respondent to hear and dispose of the appeal within a specified time frame.

Analysis:
The writ petition sought to quash the order of the second respondent Appellate Tribunal and direct a hearing for the petitioner's appeal. The petitioner, a company engaged in works contracts, contested the tax liability proposed by the first respondent, which was limited to 33% of the contract value. A show cause notice was issued, demanding a substantial amount along with penalties. The petitioner appealed against this order, requesting a waiver of pre-deposit and a stay on recovery. Various grounds were raised, arguing that tax on works contract service was introduced only from 1.6.2007, and prior demands were not sustainable. The petitioner referred to judgments emphasizing the limited scope of taxing works contracts. Additionally, the petitioner highlighted a High Court judgment from Karnataka, asserting that works contract service became taxable only from 1.6.2007. The petitioner urged the second respondent to refer the matter to a larger bench for a comprehensive resolution.

The first respondent contended that the impugned order was interim, and final decisions on the raised issues were pending. The respondent argued that all issues could be addressed during the final hearing of the appeal, making the current writ petition premature. The Court, after considering submissions from both sides, declined to grant immediate reliefs but directed the second respondent to hear and conclude the appeal within twelve weeks. It emphasized that all issues, including the larger bench referral, could be raised and decided during the appeal hearing. The Court clarified that the second respondent should independently assess the matters without being influenced by previous observations. The writ petition was ordered accordingly, with no costs incurred, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

---