2024 (10) TMI 1025 - HC - GST

Statutory Challenge Rejected: Petitioner Ordered to Submit Objections to Adjudicating Authority Within Prescribed Procedure

Harris Jayaraj Versus The Joint Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), The Joint Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise

HC dismissed the Writ Petition challenging a Show Cause Notice under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. The court directed the Petitioner to file ... Challenge to SCN issued under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 - leviability of the Service Tax - scope of the word 'Service' - HELD THAT:- Exactly the points that has been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner who have challenged against the Show Cause Notice since has been answered by the said decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI VERSUS M/S. WUNDERBAR FILMS PRIVATE LIMITED, REP. BY MR. S. VINOD KUMAR, DIRECTOR, CHENNAI [2024 (3) TMI 17 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], by respectfully following the same, this Writ Petition is dismissed also on same terms i.e., open to the Writ Petitioner to reply to the Impugned Show Cause Notice wherein it is for the Writ Petitioner to take whatever grounds/objections against the Show Cause Notice and accordingly the issue can be adjudicated and decided by the Adjudicating Authority/Assessing Authority/Revenue at an earliest point of time preferably within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of filing of the reply/objections by the Writ Petitioner. Writ Petition stands disposed of. Issues:Challenge to Show Cause Notice under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994.Analysis:The Writ Petition challenges a Show Cause Notice issued under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. The main contention of the Petitioner is that the service rendered is permanent in nature and does not fall under the purview of service as defined in Section 65 B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Petitioner argued that the rights by way of transfer of goods have already been vested with the producer of the films for whom he worked. Another ground raised was the comparison to a previous case where a Show Cause Notice was quashed, indicating a similar situation.The judgment refers to a previous case where a Show Cause Notice was challenged and ultimately dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of the Court. The Coordinate Bench held that the Show Cause Notice should not be challenged, and it is for the assessee to approach the Adjudicating Authority with objections. The Adjudicating Authority was directed to decide the matter independently, without being influenced by previous judgments. The Petitioner's arguments against the Show Cause Notice were addressed by the decision of the Coordinate Bench, leading to the dismissal of the current Writ Petition on similar terms.In conclusion, the Writ Petition is dismissed, and the Petitioner is given the opportunity to reply to the Show Cause Notice with their objections. The Adjudicating Authority is directed to adjudicate and decide the issue promptly, preferably within four weeks from the filing of the reply/objections by the Petitioner. The judgment emphasizes the need for an independent decision by the Adjudicating Authority, uninfluenced by previous judgments. No costs are awarded, and connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed as a result of the judgment.