The High Court of Madras dismissed two writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging certain sections of the Finance Act, 2000 and Service Tax Rules, 1994. The court disposed of the matter by dismissal for non-prosecution as the petitioners did not appear.
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.
WP Nos.46787, 46788 of 2002
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.03.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
WP Nos.46787, 46788 of 2002
M/s.Kumaragiri Textiles Ltd.
rep. By its Director : Petitioner in WP No.46787
of 2002
M/s.Saravana Spinning Mills, Unit of Kumaragiri Electronics Ltd., rep. By its Director : Petitioner in WP No.46788 of 2002
versus
Page 1 of 4
WP Nos.46787, 46788 of 2002
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Declaration declaring that Sections 116 & 117 of Chapter V of Finance Act 2000 (Act 10 of 2000) amending the Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 (Act 32 of 1994) and validating sub-clauses (xii) and (xvii) of clause (d) of sub rule (1) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 are unconstitutional, ultra vires of basic structure of Service Tax Act itself levying service tax on the user of service insofar as the petitioners are concerned.
For Petitioners : No appearance For Respondent No.1 : Mr.K.Srinivasamurthy, SPC
No appearance for respondents 2 and 3
COMMON ORDER
(Made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
None appears for the petitioners.
and 117 of Chapter V of Finance Act, 2000 (Act 10 of 2000), amending Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 (Act 32 of 1994) and validating sub-clauses (xii) and (xvii) of clause (d) of sub-Rule (1) of Service Tax Rules, 1994.
Page 2 of 4
WP Nos.46787, 46788 of 2002
subsist. As none appears for the petitioners, the writ petitions are dismissed for non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs.
(S.V.G., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.) 04.03.2024 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No tar
To
Page 3 of 4
WP Nos.46787, 46788 of 2002
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
(tar)
WP Nos.46787, 46788 of 2002
04.03.2024
Page 4 of 4
4 provisions across 4 enactments
M/s. Kumaragiri Textiles Ltd.
M/s. Saravana Spinning Mills
The Union of India
The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Hosur Division
The Superintendent of Central Excise, Dharmapuri Range
Sanjay V. Gangapurwala
D. Bharatha Chakravarthy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
