2020 (2) TMI 1167 - HC - Service Tax

Service tax audit - Jurisdiction post GST era - Sections 173 and 174 of the GST Act of 2017 - respondent authorities has placed reliance on a coordinate Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court in M/S. GITANJALI VACATIONVILLE PRIVATE LIMITED ANR. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA ANR. 2019 (1) TMI 917 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT wherein the Court had refused to pass any interim order. HELD THAT - The impugned notices dated December 13, 2018 and April 25, 2019 should be stayed till June 12, 2020 or until further orders whichever is earlier. Let the matter appear in the combined monthly list for the month of June 2020 under the heading Hearing .

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether respondents should be allowed to file affidavits in the matter.
2. Interpretation of a coordinate Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court.
3. Reference to a coordinate Bench judgment by the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court.
4. Stay of similar notices of audit by different High Courts.

Analysis:

1. The judgment begins with the Court allowing the respondents to file affidavits in the matter after a thorough hearing. The Court directs the filing of an affidavit-in-opposition within six weeks and a reply two weeks thereafter.

2. The counsel for the respondent authorities relies on a coordinate Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court in a specific case where the Court had refused to pass any interim order. This reference is crucial in understanding the legal context of the case.

3. The judgment highlights the reference made by the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court to the Calcutta High Court's order and the differing opinion expressed by Aniruddha Bose, CJ. The specific paragraphs 9 and 10 of the order are quoted to elucidate the interpretation and application of the law in similar situations.

4. The Court considers submissions from all parties and various orders from different High Courts regarding the stay of similar audit notices. After reviewing the cases, the Court forms a prima facie view that the impugned notices should be stayed until a specified date or until further orders, based on the precedents and legal principles discussed in the judgment.

5. In conclusion, the Court schedules the matter for the month of June 2020 under the heading 'Hearing,' indicating the ongoing nature of the legal proceedings and the importance of the issues at hand. The judgment reflects a detailed analysis of legal precedents and interpretations to arrive at a reasoned decision regarding the matters in contention.