Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
M/S Construction Engineering Services ... vs Supreintendent on 14 September, 2017
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
1
14.09.2017.
kaushik
W.P. No. 23274 (W) of 2017
M/s Construction Engineering Services & Anr.
Versus
Supreintendent, DGCEI, KZU, Kolkata & Ors.
Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharjee
Mr. Bhaskar Sengupta ... For the Petitioner
Mr. Somnath Ganguly
Mr. Bhaskar P. Banerjee ... For the Respondents no.1‐3
Mr. Billwadal Bhattacharya Mr. Sirsanya Bandyopadhyay For the Respondents no. 4 Mr. Abhratosh Majumder Mr. Soumitra Mukherjee Mr. Avra Majumdar .. For the State A summons dated June 20, 2017 issued by the Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, East Zonal Unit, Kolkata is under challenge in the present writ petition.
Learned senior advocate for the petitioner submits that, the provisions of Service Tax is not attracted in respect of a contract entered into between a contractor and the Jadavpur University. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from lack of jurisdiction. The authority has assumed jurisdiction where none vests in it. Consequently, the same is required to be quashed.
Learned advocate appearing for the Central Excise Authorities submits that, the writ is directed against a summons. It would be appropriate if the petitioner responds to the summons to substantiate the reasons as to why the Service Tax is not attracted to the contracts as referred to under the summons for the period as mentioned. The writ court need not intervene at this stage.
2The State, the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are represented. The challenge is in respect of assumption of jurisdiction. The jurisdictional fact is required to be looked at and considered. It would be appropriate to permit the petitioner to place the relevant materials before the Superintendent issuing the summons to substantiate the contention of the petitioner that, the Service Tax is not payable in respect of the subject contracts for the period as mentioned under the summons. He is restrained from issuing any show‐cause notice to the petitioner without the leave of this Court.
The issues raised in the writ petition are such that an opportunity to file affidavit should be given to the respondents.
The petitioner will submit the documents and replies in pursuant to the summons before the concerned Superintendent within 15 days from date. The time period granted is peremptory.
Let affidavit‐in‐opposition be filed within October 27, 2017; affidavit‐in‐reply, if any, be filed within November 03, 2017.
List this writ petition in the monthly combined list of November, 2017 under the heading "Hearing".
The Central Goods and Service Tax Department will submit a report in the form of an affidavit to be affirmed by October 27, 2017 as to the assumption of jurisdiction on the basis of the replies and the documents submitted by the petitioner before the concerned Superintendent.
Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.
( Debangsu Basak, J. )