Dispute over service tax liability resolved by Court; parties directed to Superintendent for resolution

The Court addressed the dispute over service tax liability between the petitioner and BSNL, directing both parties to appear before the Superintendent for resolution. The Court declined to interfere with the summons issued by the competent authority, emphasizing the need for a hearing. The Court dismissed the petitioner's claim of premeditated summons, noting the absence of pre-judgment by the authority. Both parties were instructed to attend the Superintendent for resolution, with default leading to a decision based on available records. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

---

---

Issues:

1. Dispute regarding liability for service tax between petitioner and BSNL.
2. Impugning of summons issued by the competent authority.
3. Allegation of premeditated summons by the petitioner.
4. Request for interference by the Court at the current stage.

Analysis:

1. The judgment addresses the dispute over the liability for service tax between the petitioner and BSNL. The petitioner, a contractor appointed by BSNL, claims to have discharged the service tax liability as per the agreement. However, BSNL contests this position and shifts the liability onto the petitioner. The summons issued by the competent authority, the respondent Superintendent of Central Excise and Service Tax Division, Muzaffarpur, is challenged by the petitioner through the writ petition. The Court notes the inter party dispute and directs both parties to appear before the Superintendent to resolve the matter.

2. The petitioner questions the validity of the summons issued by the competent authority. The Court observes that the summons was issued following an enquiry and a prima facie impression gathered by the competent authority. The Court declines to interfere at this stage and directs both the petitioner and BSNL to appear before the Superintendent to provide an opportunity for hearing and resolution of the matter in accordance with the law.

3. The petitioner alleges that the summons is premeditated, citing a previous letter from the same authority regarding short deposit of service tax. However, the Court finds that the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, Central Excise and Service Tax Department, does not indicate any pre-judgment on the issue. The Court emphasizes that the summons was issued to both contesting parties for producing documents to support their claims, and rushing to the Court without responding to the summons was not the appropriate course of action.

4. The Court, after hearing the arguments from both sides, decides not to interfere with the matter at the current stage. The Court directs both the petitioner and BSNL to appear before the Superintendent by a specified date and clarifies that any default in appearance may lead the Superintendent to dispose of the matter based on the available records. The writ petition is disposed of with these directions.

---