2024 (5) TMI 11 - HC - Service Tax

Writ Petition on Service Tax Demand Notice Dismissed as Premature; Response and Adjudication Timelines Set.

R. Chinnathambi Versus The Government of India, Additional Director General, DGGI, Coimbatore Zonal Unit, Coimbatore, M/s. V.O. Chidambaranar Port Trust Ltd., M/s. Kamarajar Port Trust Ltd., M/s. Indian Port Rail Corporation Ltd., M/s. RITES Ltd., Bengaluru

The HC deemed the Writ Petition challenging the Show Cause cum Demand Notice for service tax demand premature. The petitioner was directed to respond to ... Challenging the validity of show cause notice (SCN) - Recovery of Swachh Bharat Cess - service provided by the petitioner by putting in rail linings - exempted in terms of Sl.No.14(a) to Mega Exemption Notification No.25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 as amended by Notification No.6/2015-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. Issues Involved:Challenge to Show Cause cum Demand Notice u/s 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 for service tax demand, adjustment of already paid amount, interest demand u/s 75, penalty under sections 76, 77(1)(c), 77(2), and 78, and failure to furnish documents summoned u/s 83.Summary:The petitioner challenged Show Cause cum Demand Notice No.45/2020-ST dated 23.12.2020 issued by the second respondent, calling for payment of Rs. 9,37,17,910 under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, along with interest and penalties. The petitioner argued that the service provided was exempted under Mega Exemption Notification, and a sum of Rs. 20,00,000 was paid in advance. The petitioner contended that the notice was unjustified and should be quashed. The second respondent claimed premature filing of the Writ Petition and emphasized the need for adjudication proceedings. The sixth respondent objected to being impleaded in the petition, citing contractual obligations. The court deemed the petition premature and directed the petitioner to respond to the notice within 30 days, with the second respondent instructed to adjudicate the matter within 30 days thereafter, ensuring compliance with the law. The Writ Petition was disposed of without costs, and connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.