R DEVARAJAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the arguments of Mr. A.R.L. Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel leading Mr. J. Anandakumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. G.R. Swaminathan, Mr. G. Prabhurajadurai, Mr. P. Arun Jayatram and Mr. B. Raveendran, counsel for petitioners, Mr. R. Aravindan, learned Senior Standing Counsel, M/s. S. Annamalai, Vijaya Karthikeyan, Syed Basha, L.J. Soundararajan, V. Ramakrishnan K. Ayyanar, V. Duraipandian G. Rengarajan, S. Sivasubramanian, S.R. Neelakandan, Paul Sukumaran, M. Koodalingam, A. Akkbar Basha, Shiek Abdullah, S.V. Pugalendhi and J. Indra, learned Counsel appearing for respondents.

(2.) The petitioners have come up to challenge the summons issued by the respondents by the exercise of power under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The ground raised was that the summons were issued totally without jurisdiction. The petitioners claimed that they are not covered by the provisions of the Service Tax in terms of the Finance Act, 1994. Even other wise, there is specific exemption under the charging provisions of the Act. Further the Central Government itself has granted exemption in respect of activities carried on by exemption notification No. 24/2009, dated 27.7.2009 in terms of Section 93(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. The said exemption has retrospective effect. Since the petitioners do not have any liability to pay service tax, the summons issued by the respondents are without jurisdiction.

(3.) Further, since summons were issued without jurisdiction, there is no necessity to wait for any actual order to be passed by the respondents so as to avail remedy provided under the Act. The question of relegating the parties to alternative remedy is one of discretion. In some of the cases, it is stated that the respondents not contended with the issuance of summons, even during pendency of the writ petitions, have issued show cause notices to their clients.