The High Court of Madras dismissed a nearly decade-old writ petition filed by a cinematographic equipment hire firm seeking a declaration that certain sections of the Finance Act are not applicable. The court noted the petition was unrepresented and dismissed it for want of prosecution.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 11.03.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
Writ Petition No.16335 of 2009 and M.P. No.1 of 2009
Anand Cine Service by its Managing Partner A.Manohar Prasad .. Petitioner Versus
The Commissioner of Service Tax, 6th Floor, MHU Complex, No.692, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai 600 035. .. Respondent
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of declaration to declare that Sec. 65 (78), 65(105) (zb) u/s 65 (105) (zb) and under Sec. 65 (105) (zzzj) of the Act are not applicable to the petitioner firm and forbear the respondent from initiating action for collection of service tax on the rentals collected by the petitioner firm by hiring out the cinematographic equipments such as cameras, lenses, generators, cranes, etc. in terms of the said sections from the petitioner.
For Petitioner : No appearance For Respondent : No appearance
The writ petition has been filed seeking a declaration to declare that Sections 65 (78), 65(105) (zb) u/s 65 (105) (zb) and 65 (105) (zzzj) of the Finance Act are not applicable to the petitioner firm and forbear the respondent from initiating action against the petitioner for collection of service tax on the rentals collected by the petitioner firm by hiring out the cinematographic equipments such as cameras, lenses, generators, cranes, etc. in terms of the said sections.
2.It is seen that the writ petition is of the year 2009 and the same is pending for quite ten long years. Despite this Court granted four adjournments, namely, on 11.02.2019, 18.02.2019,
21.02.2019 and 01.03.2019, the petitioner has not chosen to appear to argue the matter today, which shows that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the case. Accordingly, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed for non prosecution. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (CS-VIII)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vga
To
The Commissioner of Service Tax,
6 th Floor, MHU Complex,
No.692, Anna Salai,
Nandanam, Chennai 600 035.
Writ Petition No.16335 of 2009
and M.P. No.1 of 2009
LN(CO)
SSM(12/04/2019)
Anand Cine Service by its Managing Partner A.Manohar Prasad
Commissioner of Service Tax
T. Raja
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
