Disposed

Jayalakshmi Infocom v. Assistant Commissioner of

Madras HC5 Mar 2020WP/12791/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble High Court disposed of multiple writ petitions filed by SIM card dealers challenging show cause notices issued by the Central Excise authorities. The Court directed petitioners to file written objections before deciding on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to file objections to the impugned show cause notices within two weeks; authorities to pass orders on merits within four weeks.

Jayalakshmi Infocom Vs Assistant Commissioner of — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 05.03.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶5

W.P.Nos.12791 to 12796 of 2008

¶6

W.P.No.12791 of 2008:

¶7

Jayalakshmi Infocom Rep. by its Proprietor P.Baskar ... Petitioner in W.P.No.12791 - 12793/2008 Sri Sarathi Telelinks, New Door No.144, Old No.97, Kadpadi Road, Vellore 632 004, Rep. By its Managig Partner, S. Sridhar ... Petitioner in W.P.No.12794 - 12796/2008 Vs. 1.The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Vellore Division, Central Revenue Building, Vellore – 632 001. 2.Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) Rep. by its General Manager, Cellular Service, Trichy. ... Respondents in W.P.No.12791-12794 & 12796 /2008 ...1^st and 3^rd Respondent in W.P.12795 of 2008

¶8

The Commissioner of Central Excise(Appeals), 26/1, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai -34.

¶9

... 1^st Respondents in W.P.No.12795/2008 Prayer in W.P.No.12791 of 2008:

¶10

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the 1^st respondent dated 31.01.2008 in C.No.IV/16/291/2006-STC, in Order-in-original No.5/2008, 30/03/2007 in C.No.IV/16/161/2005-STC, in Order-in-original No.15/2007, dated 05.12.2005 C.No.IV/16/161/2005-STC, in Orderin-original No.61/2005, dated 31.01.2008 C.No.IV/16/290/2006-

¶11

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

¶12

STC, in Order-in-original No.6/2008, dated 31/03/2006 Order-inAppeal No.40/2006 (MIII) (ST), dated 30/03/2007 C.No.IV/16/290/2006-STC, in Order-in-original No.14/2007 respectively and quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Mahendran

¶14

M/s.McGan Law Firm

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.S.Rajasekar for R1 Junior Standing Counsel Mr.M.Vaidyanathan for R2

¶16

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶17

W.P.Nos.12791 to 12794 and 12796 of 2008 have been filed seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent dated 31.01.2008, 30.03.2007, 05.12.2005, 31.01.2008 and 30.03.2007 respectively, in C.Nos.IV/16/291/2006-STC, IV/16/61/2005-STC, IV/16/61/2005-STC, IV/16/290/2006-STC and IV/16/290/2006-STC in Order-in-original Nos.5/2008, 15/2007, 61/2005, 6/2008 and 14/2007 respectively and to quash the same.

¶18

2.W.P.No.12795 of 2008 has been filed seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent dated 31.03.2006 order-in-Appeal No.40/2006(M-111) (ST) and quash the same.

¶19

3.The petitioners are dealers in SIM card and Recharge Coupon of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited. The impugned show cause notices have been issued to the petitioners demanding them to pay service tax. The petitioners have filed these writ petitions on the ground that the Telecom Services being separately classified, even assuming that the petitioners are rendering any service that is related to the specific service, the service of the petitioners cannot be brought under the general classification.

¶20

4.When these writ petitions were taken up, the learned Junior Standing Counsel has submitted that the petitioners have to file necessary objections to the impugned show cause notices, meeting out all the points raised therein and if that is done, the same will be considered by the first respondent and after affording an opportunity to the petitioners, appropriate orders would be passed in accordance with law.

¶21

5.Taking note of the above submission, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the petitioners to file their objections to the impugned show cause notices, meeting out all the points raised therein, within a period of two weeks from the

¶22

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

¶23

date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the objections, the same shall be considered by the first respondent on merits and in accordance with law, and necessary orders be passed within a period of four weeks therefrom, after affording due opportunity to the petitioners.

¶24

6.The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed.

¶25

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
pri
To
1.The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise,
Vellore Division,
Central Revenue Building,
Vellore – 632 001.
2.The General Manager,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL)
Cellular Service,
Trichy.
3.The Commissioner of Central Excise(appeals),
26/1 Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Chennai-600 034.

¶26

+2 ccs to M/s MC Gan Law Firm,Advocates,S.R.Nos.20007, 20006 +6 ccs to Mr.M.Vaidyanathan, Advocate, S.R.No. 20095

¶27

W.P.Nos.12791 to 12796 of 2008

¶28

sr[co] srg 21/07/2020

¶29

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

Jayalakshmi Infocom v. Assistant Commissioner of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayalakshmi Infocom v. Assistant Commissioner of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Harikrishnan Vs The Tamil Nadu State

N.Murugan Vs The Tamil Nadu State

B.Balamurugan Vs Managing Director

C. Ramalingam Vs The District of Town

United India Insurance Vs Venkatesan

M/S. St-Cms Electric Co.Pvt. Vs the Customs, Excise and