Mohammed Sameer, Partner vs. Government Of INDIA

Held

The Court noted the submission made by the respondents that the impugned order dated 22.09.2017 did not fix any service tax liability on the petitioner. The respondents clarified that the order merely required the petitioner to produce certain documents to examine whether the services rendered by him attracted service tax. They further submitted that the order was neither a show cause notice nor a final conclusion. In light of these submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the Writ Petition. Recording the endorsement made by the petitioner's counsel, the Court dismissed the Writ Petition as withdrawn. The petitioner was granted liberty to place all the required documents and other materials to support their claim before the second respondent. The Court also stated that if any adverse order was passed against the petitioner by the second respondent, it would be open for the petitioner to challenge it in the manner recognized by law. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Facts

The petitioner, Mohammed Sameer, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging proceedings dated September 22, 2017, issued by the Superintendent (Preventive), Office of the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Trichy I Division. The petitioner sought to quash these proceedings as illegal. The respondents, including the Government of India and the Superintendent of GST, submitted that the impugned order did not fix any service tax liability on the petitioner. Instead, it merely requested the production of certain documents to determine if the services rendered by the petitioner attracted service tax. The respondents clarified that the order was neither a show cause notice nor a final conclusion.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned proceedings dated 22.09.2017 issued by the Superintendent (Preventive) are illegal and liable to be quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings, implying they were illegal. The specific grounds for illegality were not detailed in the provided text, but the prayer indicates a challenge to the validity of the order. Respondents' Contention: The respondents argued that the impugned order was not illegal as it did not impose any liability. They contended that the order was a preliminary step requiring the petitioner to produce documents for examination to ascertain potential service tax liability. They further stated that it was neither a show cause notice nor a final determination, and the petitioner had the option to submit documents and other materials to support their claim that the services provided did not attract service tax.