Dismissed

V.S.Ekambaram, v. The Additional Commissioner

Madras HC10 Feb 2021WP/26356/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged a Show Cause Notice demanding service tax. The court held that no reply was filed to the notice and the adjudication process was not completed. The court dismissed the petition, directing the petitioner to participate in the pending proceedings and the respondent to decide on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file reply to Show Cause Notice within 30 days; First Respondent to pass order on merits within three months after hearing.

V.S.Ekambaram, Vs The Additional Commissioner — Customs and Excise | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.No.26356 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 10.02.2021

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

W.P.No.26356 of 2014
and
M.P.No.1 of 2014
1.V.S.Ekambaram
2.V.E.Gayathri ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Additional Commissioner, Chennai – III,
Office of the Commissioner of Central Excise,

¶7

Chennai – III Commissionerate, 26/1, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai – 600 034.

¶8

2.The Superintendent (SIR), Office of the Commissioner of Central Excise,

¶9

Survey Intelligence and Research Cell,

¶10

Tambaram – II Division, Plot No.40, Ranga Colony, Rajakilipakkam, Chennai – 600 073. ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 1^st respondent culminating in the impugned show cause Notice No.27/2014 (ST) bearing C.No.V/15/RIS/33/2014-ADC-C.Ex.-Adj.-III dated 21.08.2014, quash the same and direct the 1^st respondent to redo the

¶12

1/5

¶13

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶14

W.P.No.26356 of 2014

¶15

adjudication in accordance with law after completion of investigation by the 2^nd respondent.

¶16

For Petitioners : Mr.Arun Anbumani For Respondents : M/s.R.Hemalatha Senior Standing Counsel

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petitioner has challenged the impugned Show Cause Notice No.27/2014 (ST) dated 21.08.2014 bearing reference C.No.V/15/RIS/33/2014-

¶19

ADG-C.Ex-Adj proposing to demand an amount of Rs.18,57,154/-as service tax

¶20

due from the petitioner and to show cause as to why the amount paid by the petitioner during the course of investigation should not be appropriated towards the tax liability proposed in the impugned show cause notice and why penalty

¶21

should not be imposed on the petitioner.

¶22

2.It is a case of the petitioner that the petitioner was under a bona fide belief that he was not liable to pay service tax for renting of immovable property

¶23

and that while the matter was pending before the second respondent, the first respondent issued the impugned show cause notice thereby denying the benefit of waiver from payment of Parenti under section 73 (3) of the Finance Act,1994.

¶24

2/5 http://www.judis.nic.in

¶25

W.P.No.26356 of 2014

¶26

3.Though no counter has been filed, I am of the view that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The petitioner has been issued with the

¶27

impugned show cause notice only. It is for the petitioner to file reply to the same and participate in the adjudication process under the Finance Act,1994.

¶28

4.Therefore, I am refraining from making any observations on the

¶29

merits on the case of the petitioner. It is open for the petitioner to make

¶30

appropriate submission before the respondent in the said show cause proceeding.

¶31

5.Petitioner is therefore directed to file a reply to the impugned show

¶32

cause notice within a period of 30 days from date of receipt of this order. The 1^st respondent shall pass appropriate order on merits within a period of three months from receipt of this order.

¶33

6.Before passing such order, petitioner shall be heard either in person

¶34

or through his representative physically or through video conference. This Writ petition stands disposed with the above observations. No cost. Consequently, miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶35

3/5

¶36

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶37

W.P.No.26356 of 2014

¶38

10.02.2021

¶39

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No jas

¶40

Notes :-In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.

¶41

¶42

1.The Southern Railway,
Represented by The Chief Administrative Officer,
Construction Branch,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
2.The Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes),
Nandanam Assessment Circle,
46, Greenways Road, Chennai – 600 028.

¶43

4/5 http://www.judis.nic.in

¶44

W.P.No.26356 of 2014

¶45

C.SARAVANAN, J.

¶46

jas

¶47

W.P.No.26356 of 2014
and
M.P.No.1 of 2014
10.02.2021

¶48

5/5 http://www.judis.nic.in

V.S.Ekambaram, v. The Additional Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.S.Ekambaram, v. The Additional Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Subramaian and Co. Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

M/S. Noyyal Common Effluent Vs the Assistant Commissioner (Ct

Rank International School Vs the Executive Officer

Sri Om Prakash Soni Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes

B.R.Jayaprakash, Vs the Commissioner

Sudha Ravi Vs Income Tax Officer