9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 788X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dents 1 and 2 and Mr.S.R.Sundar, learned Standing Counsel, for the 3rd respondent. 2. The petitioner is the Superintending Engineer, Bus Route Roads Department, Greater Chennai Corporation and the challenge in this writ petition is to a show cause notice issued by the 2nd respondent dated 22.11.2017, answerable to the 3rd respondent-Adjudicating Authority. 3. In the impugned show cause notice, the 2nd respondent has proposed as to why the service rendered by the petitioner should not be classified as "Renting of immovable property" services as per section 65B(22) read with Section 66E(a) of the Finance Act; as to why an amount of Rs. 3,85,67,112/- [Rupees three crores eighty five lakhs sixty seven thousand one hundred and twelve onl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner. Further, the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction to demand service tax, since the services are rendered for the general public and no GST is leviable on a public duty performed by the Corporation of Chennai. Further it is submitted there are two types of activities involved in the process of laying the optical fibre cables, viz., excavation, which is done by the contractor, who remit the payment inclusive of all taxes and the other being work of restoration, which is done by the Corporation of Chennai. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the Central Government in exercise of power conferred under section 93(1) of the Act has issued Mega Exemption Notification 25/2012, dated 20.06.2012 in and by which certa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and considering the nature of services for which there is a proposal to tax the petitioner, the Mega Exemption Notification will have no application to the case on hand. 7. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent reiterated the submissions put-forth by the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. 8. After elaborately hearing the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perusing the materials on record, I am of the considered view that the writ petition is not maintainable and it is premature, firstly for the reason that the impugned order in the writ petition is only a show cause notice and not an order for the petitioner to be aggrieved. The petitioner challenges the impugned sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Exemption Notification has to be adjudicated before the authority. Thus, the jurisdictional issue, which is pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General is not purely a jurisdictional issue as it primarily involves adjudication of facts. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has to necessarily submit their reply to the impugned show cause notice and participate in the adjudication process. Therefore, on the grounds raised by the petitioner, the show cause notice cannot be quashed. 10. For the above reasons, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, it is made clear that the observation made in this order are only prima facie observations made while testing the legal question as to whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
