2024 (9) TMI 1418 - HC - Service Tax

Seeking for issuance of appropriate writ to quash the SCN issued by the 1st respondent - Seeking to restrain the said Authority from adjudicating the same - HELD THAT - The nature of contentions raised by the petitioner require not only interpretation of the work order which would be factual but also a detailed consideration of the exemption sought for by placing reliance on the N/N. 25/2012-ST. The contention whether supply of man power involved in garbage collection as well as auto tipper with condition imposed in the supply order fall within the activity of solid waste management, is a matter that requires factual appreciation after taking note of the terms of the supply order. Such exercise cannot be made by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the stage post show cause notice. Petitioner is also at liberty to make out reply to the show cause notice within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. All contentions of the petitioner are kept open including as referred to by this Court in the discussion made above as well as grounds made out in the writ petition - Petition disposed off by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of show cause notice and restraining authority from adjudicating.
2. Interpretation of Mega exemption notification 12/2012 and notification 25/2012.
3. Jurisdiction of authority to issue show cause notice.
4. Bar on limitation for issuance of show cause notice.
5. Remand of the matter post show cause notice for detailed consideration.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash a show cause notice issued by the 1st respondent and to prevent the authority from adjudicating the matter. The petitioner, a contractor engaged in Municipal Solid Waste Management, argued that the services provided fall within the Mega exemption notification of 12/2012 as amended by notification No.25/2012.

2. The petitioner contended that despite the amendment, services provided to a local authority for solid waste management remain exempted. Referring to the supply order by BBMP, the petitioner highlighted the obligation to supply auto tippers, drivers, helpers, and Paurakarmikas for garbage collection. It was argued that the work performed falls within the exemption notification 25/2012-ST.

3. The petitioner also relied on a D.O. Letter from the Government of India clarifying that solid waste management services would remain exempted. The authority was accused of lacking jurisdiction to issue the notice and violating the limitation period for such notices. The petitioner sought to set aside the show cause notice based on these grounds.

4. The revenue's counsel argued that the contentions raised were factual and suggested remanding the matter to allow the petitioner to respond to the show cause notice. The Court noted that the interpretation of the work order and exemption notification required detailed factual consideration beyond the scope of writ jurisdiction.

5. Consequently, the Court remanded the matter post show cause notice, granting the petitioner 30 days to respond. The petitioner was directed to provide a comprehensive reply and submit all necessary documents for the authority to make a considered decision on the nature of work performed and whether it falls within the exemption notification. The petition was disposed of with all contentions kept open for further consideration.