AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vikramajit Sen, J.—No demand on account of service tax is contained in this Writ Petition. Mr. Rakesh Tiku, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, states that APTECH University has been recovering service tax from the Petitioner. His contention is that the Writ Petition is predicated on the letter dated 8-10-2004 from the Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax which contains the opinion that the Petitioner''s activities are taxable with effect from 1-7-2004. It is further argued that since APTECH has demanded service tax, allegedly for onward payment to the Commissioner of Service Tax, the Petition is not premature. I am unable to accept this argument for the reason that it would be based upon the dispute between the APTECH and the Petitioner. In the absence of any demand made by the respondent the Petition is indubitably premature.
The rejection of this Writ Petition shall not be construed as giving this Court''s imprimatur to the view taken by the Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax in the letter dated 8-10-2004. This issue will have to be decided by the Authority concerned as and when the situation demands.
The Writ Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.