M/S. Saj Flight Services Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 4 August, 2006

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 20596 of 2006(B)


1. M/S. SAJ FLIGHT SERVICES PVT. LTD.,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

 Dated :04/08/2006

 O R D E R
                         THOTTATHIL B.   RADHAKRISHNAN,J
                       ---------------------------------------------------------
                               W.P.(C). NO. 20596 OF 2006
                       ---------------------------------------------------------
                          Dated this the 4nd day of August 2006


                                              ORDER

Not admitted.

The writ petitioner, is stated to be a company incorporated in Chennai.

On the basis of Ext.P2, petitioner was granted Ext. P3 registration under the

Service Tax Rules by allowing the petitioner to have a single registration though

it carries out operations at various places. In my view this does not however

exclude the authority or jurisdiction of the other authorities under the service tax

laws to conduct inspection or inquiry as regards the activities of the petitioner at

the different places for the purpose of ensuring that the necessary remittances

are made towards service tax. So much so, the proceedings, if any, following

Ext. P5 Mahazar cannot be, prima facie, found fault for lack of jurisdiction. I

hasten to add that the views expressed in this order are only for the purpose of

the directions that are being issued herein and they shall not bind the petitioner

at the further hearing of this case.

Ext. P5 has to be followed up, though neither the petitioner nor the

departmental authorities can go beyond or away from the statutory provisions.

While the petitioner has to provide such details as are required, the proceedings

have to necessarily go ahead in terms of law. To ascertain the events that have

followed Ext.P7 until now, the competent among the respondents will place on

record a statement regarding the proceedings after Ext. P5. Such statement

shall be placed within a period of 3 weeks. Post after three weeks.

Hand over copy to learned Assistant Solicitor General.

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE.

RV/