TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 401
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the Appellants (By Sri. V. Raghuraman Sr. Counsel A/W Bhanu Murthy And C.R. Raghavendra, Advocate) For the Respondents (By Sri. Jeevan J Neeralgi, Advocate) JUDGMENT S.G. PANDIT J. This intra-Court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 30.09.2021 in W.P. No. 59487/2016 whereby the appellants' challenge to Summons No. 44/2016 dated 28.07.2016 (Annexure-A) summoning the appellants to appear before the Second respondent is rejected. 2. Heard the learned senior counsel Sri. V. Raghuraman for Sri. C.R. Raghavendra, learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel Sri. Jeevan J. Neeralgi for respondents. Perused the appeal papers. 3. Brief facts which led to fili....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earned senior counsel Sri. V. Raghuraman would submit that learned Single Judge failed to consider the grounds urged by appellants in its proper perspective and further submits that learned Single Judge failed to take note of I.A. No. 2/2017 for production of additional documents and grounds. Hence, he submits that matter requires to be remitted back to the learned Single Judge to consider the additional documents and grounds along with I.A. No. 2/2017. 5. Learned senior counsel would further submit that Rule 3 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 (for short, '1994 Rules') empowers the Central Board of Excise and Customs to appoint such Central Excise Officers as it thinks fit for exercising the powers under Chapter V of the Act within such lo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere inserted with effect from 14.05.2015. It is submitted that during the period from 2012 to 14.05.2015, there was no provision to collect service tax on expenses or out of pocket expenses. Learned senior counsel would submit that learned Single Judge failed to take note of the above contention which resulted in dismissal of the writ petition. Learned senior counsel for the appellants/petitioners has referred to various decisions which need not be gone into at this stage as we are not dealing with the merit of the matter. 7. Per contra, learned counsel Sri. Jeevan J. Neeralgi for respondents would submit that appellants are issued with show cause notice dated 13.12.2016 calling upon them to show cause to the Commissioner of Central Exci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the rights of the party. Even if it is alleged that the Authority which issues show cause notice has no jurisdiction, objection regarding jurisdiction also could be raised before the Authority. In the event of an adverse decision, it would certainly be open to challenge the same either in appeal or as the case may be in appropriate cases by invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, it is settled law that writ petition normally not be entertained against mere issuance of show cause notice. (b) In the instant case, petitioners/appellants have contended that second respondent has no jurisdiction to issue summons to appear. Learned Single Judge taking note of the relevant provisions has come to the con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er of Central Excise and Service Tax 1, Commissionerate, Bengaluru which is the Competent Authority to determine the service tax liability of the appellants/petitioners. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, there is no reason to interfere with the learned Single Judge's order insofar as jurisdiction is concerned. (e) With regard to other contentions that learned Single Judge failed to consider I.A. No. 2/2017, wherein appellants/petitioners have raised additional grounds, in that, Rule 5 of 2005 Rules was held ultra vires Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 by Delhi High Court in INTERCONTINENTAL CONSULTANTS & TECHNOCRATS PVT. LTD., case (supra) and non-taking note of the above by the learned Single Judge ....