Indu Choudhary vs. Union Of INDIA Through The Commissioner Of Central Excise And Service Tax And Anr

Held

The petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition on instruction. The learned counsel for the CGST Department did not object to this prayer. Consequently, the Court, as prayed for, dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. No specific findings were made on the merits of the issues raised by the petitioner, as the case was disposed of on the petitioner's request for withdrawal. The Court did not decide the questions of law or fact presented in the petition. No operative directions were issued other than the dismissal of the petition.

Facts

The petitioner, Indu Choudhary, filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court challenging a Demand-cum-Notice to show cause dated 09.12.2016/09.01.2017, issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Preventive), Central Excise & Service Tax, Jamshedpur, and the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Jamshedpur. The petitioner alleged that the show cause notice was issued with pre-meditation and a predetermined mind, serving as a mere formality to comply with principles of natural justice. The petitioner also contended that the respondent authorities were adopting two distinct and contrary classifications for services rendered to M/s Madhusudan Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd., which is impermissible in law. The tax period and the amount in dispute are not explicitly stated in the judgment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Demand-cum-Notice to show cause dated 09.12.2016/09.01.2017, issued by the Respondent authorities, suffers from pre-meditation and a predetermined mind, thereby violating the principles of natural justice, as argued by the petitioner? 2. Whether the Respondent authorities are adopting two distinct and contrary classifications for services rendered by the petitioner to M/s Madhusudan Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd., which is impermissible in law, as argued by the petitioner? The petitioner argued that the show cause notice was issued with pre-meditation and a predetermined mind, serving as a mere formality. The petitioner also contended that the respondent authorities were adopting two distinct and contrary classifications for services rendered to M/s Madhusudan Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd., which is impermissible in law. The revenue or State did not record any specific arguments in opposition, as they did not object to the petitioner's prayer for withdrawal.