ABP PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the writ petition the petitioner No. 1, stated to be a leading public house in the country and, inter alia, engaged in the business of printing and publishing a wide range of newspapers and periodicals and the petitioner No. 2, a citizen of India and share holder of the petitioner No. 1, have challenged the notice dated 1/4 -12 -2006 (for short "the notice") issued by the Assistant Commissioner (SIV) Service Tax, Kolkata, respondent No. 2, requesting the petitioner No. 1 to furnish certain documents mentioned therein with regard to the information regarding taxability of its activity under the category of Business Auxiliary Service (for short 'BAS') under the Finance Act, 1994. It may be noted that provisions for service tax have been made in Sections 64 to 96 -I (Chapters V. and VA) of the Finance Act, 1994. In the writ petition it has been stated that the petitioner No. 1, registered under the Service Tax with regard to eight activities, have been regularly filing service tax returns and paying tax thereto. According to the petitioner, in view of several exemptions granted by notifications and circulars, the commercial activity of printing, publishing and selling newspapers and periodicals and selling of advertisement space in print media does not fall under the category of BAS. It has been stated that the impugned notice is based on suspicion as it has been mentioned that the commercial activities may fall under category of BAS. Since the entire nature of commercial activities is known to the service tax authorities as apparent from the notice itself and from the returns filed, and since such commercial activities do not fall under the category of BAS, the documents sought for are not relevant. Moreover, the notice impugned is vague and thus the inquiry is fishing and roving in nature.

(2.) LEARNED senior advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner relying on the statements in the writ petition submitted that since in the affidavit -in -opposition it has been stated that the authorities have reasons to believe that the petitioner is carrying on BAS activities, the respondents ought to have disclosed what had prompted them to issue such notice. Submission is that the letter dated 20 -12 -2006 sent on behalf of the petitioner No. 1 in reply to the notice does not preclude the petitioner from challenging the same. Learned senior advocate for the petitioner had relied on several judgments which shall be dealt with in appropriate stage.

(3.) IN order to appreciate the issue it is necessary to refer to the impugned notice dated 1/4 -12 -2006, the relevant portion of which is as under: -