Deepak Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIA And Ors

Held

The Court held that the submissions made in the counter affidavit by the Central Excise and Service Tax Department did not indicate a pre-judgment of the issue. Paragraph 27 of the counter affidavit clearly explained that notices were issued to both the petitioner and BSNL to produce documents supporting their claims. The Court found that the petitioner had approached the High Court instead of responding to the summons and producing documents. Therefore, the Court was not persuaded to interfere with the matter at that stage. The Court directed both the petitioner and BSNL to appear before the Superintendent, Central Excise and Service Tax Division, Muzaffarpur, on or before June 25, 2019. The Superintendent was directed to proceed with the disposal of the matter in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing to both parties. The Court clarified that any default by either party would entitle the Superintendent to dispose of the matter based on the available materials.

Facts

The petitioner, proprietor of M/S Vikash Electric Works, was issued a summons on December 2, 2016, by the Superintendent, Central Excise and Service Tax Division, Muzaffarpur. The petitioner challenged this summons, arguing it was premeditated due to a prior letter dated April 8, 2015, from the same authority alleging short deposit of service tax. The petitioner, a contractor for Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL), claimed to have discharged its service tax liability. BSNL, however, contested this, shifting the liability to the petitioner. The Superintendent issued the summons to resolve this inter-party dispute regarding service tax liability.

Key Issues

1. Whether the summons issued by the Superintendent, Central Excise and Service Tax Division, Muzaffarpur, to the petitioner on December 2, 2016, is vitiated by pre-judgment, as argued by the petitioner based on a prior letter from the same authority. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that the summons was premeditated and indicative of a pre-judgment on the issue of service tax liability, citing the letter dated April 8, 2015, from the Superintendent alleging short deposit of service tax. This, according to the petitioner, demonstrated that the authority had already formed an opinion before issuing the summons. Revenue/State's Argument: The respondents (Central Excise and Service Tax Department) argued that the summons was not a pre-judgment. They submitted that the notice was issued to the two contesting parties, the petitioner and BSNL, to produce documents supporting their respective claims. They asserted that the petitioner rushed to court instead of responding to the summons and producing evidence.