2020 (4) TMI 44 - HC - Service Tax

Classification of services - Telecom Services - case of petitioner is that the Telecom Services being separately classified, even assuming that the petitioners are rendering any service that is related to the specific service, the service of the petitioners cannot be brought under the general classification - HELD THAT - The writ petitions are disposed of directing the petitioners to file their objections to the impugned show cause notices, meeting out all the points raised therein, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for records of first respondent dated 31.01.2008, 30.03.2007, 05.12.2005, and to quash the same.
2. Issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for records of first respondent dated 31.03.2006 order-in-Appeal No.40/2006(M-111)(ST) and to quash the same.
3. Classification of Telecom Services for service tax on SIM card and Recharge Coupon dealers.

Analysis:

1. The petitioners, dealers in SIM card and Recharge Coupon of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, filed writ petitions seeking Writ of Certiorari to challenge show cause notices demanding service tax payment. They argued that even if they provide services related to Telecom Services, their services should not be classified under general service tax. The Junior Standing Counsel advised the petitioners to file objections to the notices, addressing all points raised, for the first respondent's consideration.

2. The court, considering the submission, directed the petitioners to file objections to the show cause notices within two weeks, meeting all raised points. The first respondent was instructed to review the objections on merit and in accordance with the law, and pass necessary orders within four weeks after giving the petitioners an opportunity to present their case.

3. Consequently, the writ petitions were disposed of without costs, with the understanding that any connected miscellaneous petitions would be closed. The judgment focused on procedural fairness, allowing the petitioners to challenge the show cause notices by submitting objections and ensuring a review process by the first respondent in accordance with the law.