9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 627X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner, That being so, to that extent, the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs prayed for, petitioner is not liable to pay service charges as demanded therein. The original petition is allowed as above. - O.P. No. 16463 of 2002(I) - - - Dated:- 6-11-2009 - S. Siri Jagan, J. Shri E.K. Nandakumar, for the Petitioner. Shri Sajeesh K.B., Addl. CGSC, for the Respondent. [Judgment]. The petitioner is a Company engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn. In order to transport cotton yarn so manufactured by the Company, the Company engages the services of transporters. For the first time in 1997, the Parliament introduced levy of service tax on services rendered by goods transport operators. In respect of the same, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the new Sections. According to the petitioner, prior to the introduction of Sections 116 and 117, the petitioner was never served with any notices regarding payment of service tax in respect of availing of services of goods transporters. Therefore, Sections 116 and 117 could not have been invoked against the petitioner for the purpose of demanding service tax for the period from 16-7-1997 to 15-10-1998 when the original levy, which was struck down by the Supreme Court, was in force. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs : (i) Call for the records leading to Exts. P2 demand notice issued to the petitioner by the third respondent and quash the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or such other writ, order or direc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contend that insofar as the petitioner had not been served with any demand notice during the period between 16-7-1997 and 15-10-1998 and therefore in respect of that period, the petitioner could not have been mulcted with liability to pay service charges based on the validating provisions introduced by Finance Act, 2000. 3. I have heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the Department of Central Excise and Customs. 4. After hearing both sides, I am satisfied that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in J.K. Spinning and Weaving Mills s case (supra) in favour of the petitioner. That being so, to that extent, the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs prayed for. 5. Accordingly, Ext. P2 demand is q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
