IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 29718 of 2008(K)
1. M/S.UNITED CONTRUCTION COMPANY, A
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL
... Respondent
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL
3. THE COCHIN EVASWOM BOARD, REP.BY
4. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
For Respondent :SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP,SC,COCHIN D.B
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :17/11/2008
O R D E R
K.M. JOSEPH, J.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No. 29718 OF 2008 K
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 17th day of November, 2008
J U D G M E N T
I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
standing counsel for the 3rd respondent.
2. Case of the petitioner in brief is as follows. The
petitioner is a firm which had undertaken the work of effecting
construction for the 3rd respondent. The petitioner came to be
assessed to service tax under section 65 (25B) of Chapter 5 of the
Finance Act, 1994. According to the petitioner, it is an indirect tax
and it could be realised from the customer. Petitioner made a
representation. Ext.P12 is the order passed. In Ext.P12, it is
stated as follows.
” As per the papers cited above it is
decided that the application from the contractor
for reimbursing the service tax need not be
considered.”
3. I would think that the decision does not address any of
the issues raised and accordingly the matter is to be reconsidered.
Ext.P12 is quashed. The 3rd respondent will take a fresh decision
WPC.29718/08
: 2 :
on the application filed by the petitioner adverting to the relevant
issues within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
(K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE)
aks
// TRUE COPY //
P.A. TO JUDGE