9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 788X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue, which is pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General is not purely a jurisdictional issue as it primarily involves adjudication of facts. The writ petition is not maintainable and it is premature, for the reason that the impugned order in the writ petition is only a SCN and not an order for the petitioner to be aggrieved - petition dismissed being not maintainable. - W.P.No.6059 of 2018 & W.M.P.No.7472 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 24-4-2018 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioner : Ms.Narmadha Sampath, Additional Advocate General for Mr.V.Selvasekaran For the Respondents : Mr.V.Sundareswaran, Mr.S.R.Sundar ORDER Heard Ms.Narmadha Sampath, learned Additional Advocate General for Mr.V.Selvasekaran, learned c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se is adjudicated. 4. The learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of writ petition as the impugned order in the writ petition is a show cause notice and submitted that the petitioner should be directed to file a reply to the show cause notice and participate in the adjudication process before the 3rd respondent. 5. In reply to the said preliminary objection, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the nature of services rendered by the Corporation of Chennai is services rendered to the general public and no service tax is payable. It is further submitted that the Telecom Companies, who are permitted to lay Optical Fibre Cables, are pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the excavation is done and if the 2nd respondent is to adjudicate the impugned show cause notice and levy service taxation, it will amount double tax. On the above ground, learned Additional Advocate General sought for quashing the impugned show cause notice. 6. While reiterating the preliminary objection, the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that on and from 01.07.1962, all activities are liable for payment of service tax except the services which are exempted. Referring to the averments/allegations in the impugned show cause notice, it is submitted that the nature of activity, which is proposed to be taxed is renting of immovable property to various Telecom Companies and it has got nothin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for excavation work. Therefore, if any remittance being made by the Contractor who has excavated the earth for the purpose of renting of immovable property, will not absolve the petitioner from the proposal made in the show cause notice. The second aspect is whether Mega Exemption Notification would be applicable to a particular nature of service is purely a question of fact. Therefore, if the petitioner's case is that clause 13 of the Mega Exemption Notification 25/2012, is applicable to them, they have to bring the nature of services within the ambit of clause 13 of the Mega Exemption Notification, as the legal principle being that strict interpretation would be given to any exemption notification. Therefore, the disputed questions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
