National Engineering Industrie vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors

CW/772/2004HC RajasthanGSTCNR RJHC02023659200405 February 2025Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR2 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The petitioner, National Engineering Industries Limited, filed a writ petition challenging notices dated 27.10.2003 and 29.01.2004 issued by the Superintendent, Central Excise. These notices demanded deposit of service tax along with interest on goods transport services availed by the petitioner during the periods 16.07.1997 to 15.10.1998 and 16.11.1997 to 02.06.1998. The petitioner's grievance was that the Superintendent lacked jurisdiction to demand service tax, especially as the petitioner claimed exemption. The respondents are the Union of India, the Superintendent, Central Goods and Service Tax, and the Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax.

Held

The Court held that the impugned communications dated 27.10.2003 and 29.01.2004 were to be treated as show-cause notices, not as final demands. The Court reasoned that since no demand had been created against the petitioner, the notices were preliminary in nature. Therefore, the petitioner was directed to file a reply to these show-cause notices within eight weeks from the date of the order. Following the petitioner's reply, the respondents were directed to proceed in accordance with the law. The Court also clarified that the petitioner would be at liberty to avail further remedies if aggrieved by the decision taken by the respondents. The issue of jurisdiction was implicitly addressed by treating the notices as show-cause notices, allowing the petitioner to present their case on merits, including any claims of exemption.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Superintendent, Central Excise, had the jurisdiction to demand service tax from the petitioner, particularly when the petitioner claimed exemption? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the Superintendent lacked the necessary jurisdiction to issue the demand notices for service tax. They also asserted that they had claimed an exemption from service tax, which was not considered. Revenue's Contention: The judgment notes that the impugned communications were in fact show-cause notices, implying that no final demand had been created against the petitioner at that stage. The revenue did not explicitly argue on the jurisdiction point in the context of a final demand, but rather framed the notices as preliminary steps.

Sections Cited

Not specified in the judgment

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

[2025:RJ-JP:5151-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 772/2004 National Engineering Industries Limited, Khatipura Road, Hasanpura, Jaipur through its Asstt. General Manager, Shri Gyaneshwar Rawat S/o Late Dr. B.L. Rawat, aged about 55 years, R/o 52, Hathroi Road, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Superintendent, Central Goods and Service Tax, Range- VI, Sector 10, Vidyadhar Nagar, Jaipur. 3. The Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Nath with Mr. Ankit Popli & Ms. Gaurika Bhansali For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR

Order 05/02/2025 AVNEESH JHINGAN, J (ORAL):-

This is an application (I.A. No.1/2024) filed seeking amended cause title on record.

For the reasons mentioned therein, the application is allowed. Amended cause title is taken on record.

This petition was filed seeking quashing of notices dated 27.10.2003 and 29.01.2004 asking the petitioner to deposit service tax along with interest on the goods transport services

[2025:RJ-JP:5151-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-772/2004] availed by the petitioner during the period 16.07.1997 to 15.10.1998 and 16.11.1997 to 02.06.1998. 4. The grievance raised is that the Superintendent, Central Excise had no juri iction to demand the service tax, moreso when the petitioner had claimed exemption.

The notice issued to the petitioner directing deposit of service tax along with interest is in fact show-cause notices, as there is no demand created against the petitioner.

This petition is disposed of with the directions that the impugned communications be treated as show cause notices. Let the petitioner file reply to the show-cause notice within eight weeks from today and thereafter the respondents shall proceed in accordance with law.

Needless to say that the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail remedies in accordance with law, if aggrieved of the decision taken by the respondents. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Chandan/Arun/1

Reproduced from the public record of the Rajasthan High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.