9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 773X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der dated 15.12.2015 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal, New Delhi, directing the petitioner to deposit 10% of the tax amount, this writ petition has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution. 02. Petitioner has primarily challenged the action of imposing the liability on account of the fact that the petitioner establishment is treated to be an autonomous body incorporated by the statutory provision and functioning within the State of Madhya Pradesh. It is pointed out before us, on the bases of judgments rendered by this Court in the case Professional Examination Board vs. Bhopal Municipal Corporation Civil Revision No.1232/2002 decided on 23.07.2003 and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the legal question involved in the matter has not been properly considered and the matter will have to be remanded back to the Assessing Officer and, therefore, relegating the petitioner to take recourse to the remedy of prosecuting the appeal by depositing the 10% amount may be a futile exercise. 05. Shri Himanshu Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue argued that once the Tribunal is seized of the matter, this Court should not interfere at this stage. 06. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case as the matter has to be remanded back to the Assessing Officer for considering various legal and statutory provision which have not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hile considering this aspect in the matter of Pratibha Singh (supra) from para 23 onwards the learned Bench found that after the Adhiniyam 2007 received assent of the Governor of Madhya Pradesh on 31st August, 2007. The Act was brought into force by issuing a notification under Section 1(3), but the Board would come into existence only after issuance of a formal notification under Section 3(1) of the Adhiniyam, 2007 and as a notification under Section 3(1) of the Adhiniyam, 2007 was not notified. In the case of Pratibha Singh (supra), it has been held in para 33 that the existing Board continues to function in terms of its original creation in the year 1982 by the State Government and it is not a Board created under the Act of 2007. It cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16 and, therefore, prior to that date the Board continue to be a Department of the State Government, this aspect of the matter required consideration by the enquiry officer. 10. Accordingly, we allow this petition and quash the order dated 28.10.2013 and remand the matter back to the respondent No.2 to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. The petitioner shall appear before respondent No. 2 along with a certified copy of this order on 02nd of March, 2017 and, thereafter, respondent No.2 shall proceed in the matter in accordance with law. 11. In view of the above, no further orders are necessary with regard to the order dated 15.12.2015 passed by the Custom, Excise and Service Tax, Tribunal as the proceeding before the Tribunal now ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
