AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Jaichandren, J.—Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner.
The main contention of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner is that, inspite of an order of interim stay having been granted
by this Court, by its order, dated 09.07.2010, in M.P. No. 1 of 2010, in W.P. No. 4946 of 2010, the third Respondent has issued impugned
show cause notice, dated 12.04.2011, asking the Petitioner to appear for personal hearing, on 24.06.2011, or on 10.05.2011, for non-payment
of the service tax, as per the relevant provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, this Court does not find sufficient cause or reason to
grant the relief, as prayed for by the Petitioner, in the present writ petition.
The apprehension of the Petitioner that an adverse order would be passed against the Petitioner is ill-founded. The Petitioner is not in a position
to show as to how an order passed by this Court, on 09.07.2010, in M.P. No. 1 of 2010, in W.P. No. 4946 of 2010, is related to the subject,
which is in issue in the impugned show cause notice, dated 12.04.2011. As such, the writ petition filed by the Petitioner in pre-mature in nature.
Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, it goes without saying that if any adverse order is passed against the Petitioner, pursuant to the
impugned show cause notice, dated 12.04.2011, it would be open to the Petitioner to challenge the same, before the appropriate forum, in the
manner known to law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.