Court allows review petitions, restores writ petitions, parties to present arguments, jurisdictional challenges emphasized.

The court allowed the review petitions, recalling the dismissal order and restoring the writ petitions to the file. Both parties were permitted to present their arguments anew, with no decision on the merits made at that point. No costs were awarded. The court emphasized the need to examine the jurisdictional and legislative competency challenges raised by the petitioner, which were not adequately addressed in the initial disposal of the case.

---

---

Issues involved: Review of an order dismissing writ petitions as premature, jurisdictional issue, competence of Union of India to impose tax, pending appeal before CESTAT, challenge to legislative competence, need for examination of jurisdiction and legislative competency.

Analysis:

1. Review of Dismissal Order: The review petitions sought a reconsideration of the order dated 09.03.2015 which dismissed the writ petitions as premature. The petitioner contended that the jurisdictional issue and the competence of the Union of India to impose the tax were raised in the original writ petitions but were not brought to the court's attention when the dismissal order was passed. Therefore, a review of the order was requested based on these grounds.

2. Pending Appeal before CESTAT: It was noted that an appeal was pending before the CESTAT regarding service tax demands for a specific period. The petitioner had complied with a directive to deposit a sum of money, and the matter was still pending before the CESTAT. However, show cause notices for a subsequent period were issued, challenging the legislative competence to levy the tax, which was not highlighted during the disposal of the original writ petitions.

3. Jurisdiction and Legislative Competency: The court acknowledged that the issue of jurisdiction to impose service tax on the petitioner and the legislative competency to do so had been challenged in the writ petitions. It was emphasized that this crucial matter required examination, adjudication, and a proper answer from the court, which was not done during the previous disposal of the case. Therefore, the court concluded that the order needed to be reviewed, and the writ petitions should be heard and decided on their merits.

4. Final Order: In light of the above considerations, the court allowed the review petitions, recalled the order dated 09.03.2015, and restored the writ petitions to the file. Both parties were allowed to present their contentions afresh, and no decision on the merits of the claims was made at that stage. Additionally, no costs were awarded in this matter.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved, the reasons for the review, and the court's decision to reconsider the case based on the jurisdictional and legislative competency challenges raised by the petitioner.

---