9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1329X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e respondents have also not through Ext.P9, finally concluded on the service tax liability of the petitioner University and interested in investigating or enquiring into the nature of activities of petitioner university by referring to the accounts, statements, other evidence the university intends to produce and thereafter the issue is determined. At the cost of repetition this Court refers to the stand of respondents that the chargeability of service tax is not finally decided by respondents and the petitioner avails the opportunity now afforded through Exts.P13 and P14 or this Court directs the Deputy Director, Kozhikode to enquire into the matter and proceed thereafter.The statement of the counsel for both sides is to the same effect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In such circumstances the University, through its authorised representative, shall appear before the respondent Authority on 12.04.2017, on which date or on a near date, a hearing shall be notified for which personal acknowledgement shall be taken from the authorised representative and hearing shall be proceeded with orders passed within one months from the date of hearing. Ext.P6 is set aside for the technical defect of there being no application of mind on the objection, but however,making it clear that it is not an observation on the merits of the matter. 3. The principal objection of the petitioner is that Ext.P9 is issued without as a matter of fact recording finding on the coverage of one or other a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rage of service tax needs collection of documents and evidence, and there is no point in collecting documents or taking evidence after adjudication. Further, the respondent authority has no powers to adjudicate service tax liability and is only mandated to conduct investigation and issue show cause notice( if a reasonable case can be made out based on the investigating) to be adjudicated by the jurisdictional adjudicating authority. However, the respondent authority has examined the claim /contentions of the petitioner in the light of available facts and a legal analysis of the contentions, and observed in para -9 of Ext.P9 that Prima facie, there appears to be a strong case against the University. ( emphasis add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered necessary by the investigating officers. 11. .It can also be seen that the petitioner seems to be under the impression that the direction to the respondent authority in the judgment 22.3.2017 was to pass an order regarding the applicability of service tax (or coverage of service tax) on the university (rather than the coverage of Finance Act, 1994 on the University as mentioned in the judgment). The above interpretation of the petitioner appears to be erroneous for the simple reason that the primary purpose of the inquiry initiated was to confirm or rule out the applicability of service tax on the University, and such an interpretation would render the said inquiry meaningless, and require the respondent auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kode to enquire into the matter and proceed thereafter.The statement of the counsel for both sides is to the same effect and hence the writ petition is disposed of by this judgment. 6. The petitioner University is directed to appear on 17.7.2019 before the Deputy Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Kozhikode Regional Unit, Mahe House, Panicker Road, Nadakkavu P.O, Kozhikode-673011, Kerala with the records/statements it is advised to produce and participate in the enquiry. The Deputy Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence considers the reply and conducts enquiry independent of Ext.P9 observations and particularly keeping in view the statement made in the instant writ petition filed by the respondents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
