2013 (2) TMI 819

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... - Dated:- 5-2-2013 - Antony Dominic, J. Shri M. Pathrose Matthai, Sr. Advocate, Sunil Cyriac and Smt. Mable C. Kurian, Advocates, for the Petitioner. Shri Tojan J. Vathikulam and Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil, SCs, for the Respondent. JUDGMENT The issue raised in these writ petitions are common. Therefore, these cases were heard together. W.P.(C) No. 6774/12 is treated as the le .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cial years mentioned therein. It was thereupon that this writ petition was filed, mainly contending that the Group Deposit and Credit Scheme introduced by the society does not come within the scope of Section 65(12)(v) and therefore, the notices are illegal. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, in which, what they state is that they have not raised any demand for service tax .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... not think it is necessary for this Court to enter into the merits of the controversy. 5. In the aforesaid view of the matter, I dispose of this writ petition and direct that in reply to Exs.P1 and P2, the first petitioner shall file its objections within two weeks from today. If objections are filed as above, the respondents will hear the first petitioner and enquire as to whether the activity .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X