Dismissed

M/S.the Jawahar Mills Ltd., v. the Union of Indias

Madras HC6 Jul 2017WP/47060/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a constitutional writ petition challenging the validity of Sections 116 and 117 of the Finance Act 2000 and specific Service Tax Rules as violating the basic structure. The court dismissed the petition, relying on a binding Supreme Court decision.

What did the court decide?

No declaration sought against Articles 116 and 117 of Finance Act 2000 was granted as the petition was dismissed.

M/S.the Jawahar Mills Ltd., Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 06.07.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P.No.47060 of 2002

¶6

M/s.The Jawahar Mills Limited,

¶7

Rep. by the Managing Director, Post Box No.514, Nehru Nagaram, Salem – 636 005. ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi – 110 001. 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem Division, Salem – 636 005.

¶8

3.The Superintendent of Central Excise, Salem-I Range, Salem. ... Respondents

¶9

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a WRIT OF DECLARATION declaring that Sections 116 and 117 of Chapter V of Finance Act 2000 (Act 10 of 2000) amending chapter V of Finance Act 1994 (Act 32 of 1994) and validating sub clauses (xii) and (xvii) of clause (d) of sub rule (1) of rule 2 of Service Tax Rules 1994 are unconstitutional, ultra virus of basic structure of Service Tax Act itself levying service tax on the user of service in so far as petitioners are concerned.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Rajesh Senior Panel Counsel For Respondents: Mr.V.Sundareswaran O R D E R

¶11

Heard Mr.T.Rajesh, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.V.Sundareswaran, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

2.It is fairly submitted by the counsel on either side that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gujurat Ambuja Cements Ltd. and another vs. Union of India and another reported in (2005) 1 VST 1 (SC).

¶14

3.In the light of the said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.

¶15

Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CS V )

¶16

/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
abr
To
1. The Secretary, Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue,
The Union of India,
Government of India, North Block,
New Delhi – 110 001.
2. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise,
Salem Division, Salem – 636 001.
3. The Superintendent of Central Excise,
Salem-I Range, Salem.
+ 1 cc to M/s.S.Sivanandam, Advocate,SR.47412
+ 1 cc to M/s.V.Sundareswaran, Advocate,SR.47481
W.P.No.47060 of 2002
NR 24/07/2017

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M/S.the Jawahar Mills Ltd., v. the Union of Indias

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.the Jawahar Mills Ltd., v. the Union of Indias

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Kasilingam Vs the Commr.of Prohibition and

M/s.a.W.Travel & Logistics Vs The Commissioner of Customs

Prabha Padmanabhan Vs a.Sundaravalli, IAS

Tools International Ltd., Vs Appellate Authority for Indust

M/s Goutham Dyes & Chemicals, Vs Assistant Commisioner (Ct)

M/s.R.K.Tex Vs The Assistant Commissioner