TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (10) TMI 53
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rishnan, K. Ayyanar, V. Duraipandian, G. Rengarajan, S. Sivasubramanian, S.R. Neelakandan, Paul Sukumaran, M. Koodalingam, A. Akkbar Basha, Shiek Abdullah, S.V. Pugalendhi and J. Indra, learned counsel appearing for respondents. 2. The petitioners have come up to challenge the summons issued by the respondents by the exercise of power under section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The ground raised was that the summons were issued totally without jurisdiction. The petitioners claimed that they are not covered by the provisions of the Service Tax in terms of the Finance Act, 1994. Even otherwise, there is specific exemption under the charging provisions of the Act. Further the Central Government itself has granted exemption in res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ring for the respondents also brought to the notice of this court that in an identical circumstance, the Principal Bench of this court rejected the writ petitions filed by the similarly placed persons challenging the summons in M/s.Karvembu & Co. Vs. The Under Secretary to Government of India, Department of Revenue, New Delhi and others reported in ,dated 14.09.2010. In that judgment, the learned Judge in paragraphs 8 and 9 repelled the contentions raised by the petitioners, which are as follows: 8. The issue to be decided in these writ petitions is, in the light of the notification issued on 27.7.2009 granting exemption from paying service tax for the works in relation to management, maintenance or repair of roads, whethe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....son in relation to management, maintenance or repair of roads, from the whole of the service tax leviable thereon under section 66 of the said Finance Act. Sd/- xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Under Secretary to the Government of India" Thus, it is manifest that the Central Government on 27.7.2009 taking note of public interest granted exemption from paying service tax in relation to works namely management, maintenance/repairs of roads under section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994. The said notification nowhere states that the exemption is granted with retrospective effect. It is well settled in law that unless a notification issued specifically stating 'with retrospective effect', such notification will operate only prospectively....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Even after the adjudicating authority's order, the petitioners can very well agitate their non-liability before the appellate authority or appropriate forum and finally before this Court as held by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2010) 4 SCC 772 : 2010 (4) LW 1 (Raj Kumar Shivhare v. Directorate of Enforcement) =. Thus the writ petitions are not maintainable as contended by the respondents in the counter affidavit. 14. It is made clear that any finding given in this order need not be construed as giving any finding on the merits of the matter and the Department is bound to decide the issue in accordance with law, particularly Finance Act, 1994 and 2005. The time limit given to the petitioners to produce the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bsp;Union of India. However, that does not answer the question of maintainability of a writ petition which seeks to impugn an order declining dispensation of pre- deposit of penalty by the Appellate Tribunal. 31. When a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievance and that too in a fiscal statute, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation. In this case the High Court is a statutory forum of appeal on a question of law. That should not be abdicated and given a go-by by a litigant for invoking the forum of judicial review of the High Court under writ jurisdiction. The High Court, with great respect, fell into a manifest error by not appreciating this aspect of the matter. It has however d....