The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:-
“1. Issue a writ of certiorari, or any other writ, order or direction and thereby call for the records leading to Ext.P16 and quash the same.
2. Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other writ, order or direction and thereby direct the 3rd respondent to instruct respondents 6 & 7 to disburse the amounts due to the petitioner at the earliest.”
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that by virtue of Ext.P10 judgment dated 29.10.2014 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.28356/2014, specific directions were given the concerned authorities to have the proceedings finalised in the manner as specified therein. However, it is without any regard to the directions given by this Court, that the respondents are proceeding by way of coercive steps, to stall the payments to be made to the petitioner from their prospective clients, thus, leading to Ext.P15.
3. The case projected in the writ petition is that the petitioner is providing taxable service; but by virtue of actual facts and circumstances, there cannot be any liability to pay service tax on the shoulders of the petitioner. Since the proceedings came to finalise as per Ext.P4 order, without any regard to the actual facts and figures, the same is subjected to challenge by way of Ext.P5 appeal, which is pending before the second respondent. The coercive proceedings stand intercepted by this Court as per Ext.P10 judgment, directing the appellate authority to pass final orders, which is still to be complied with. In the meanwhile, placing reliance on Ext.P16 Circular dated 1.1.2013 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi, Ext.P14 has been issued by the 3rd respondent on 10.10.2014, which is a notice under Section 87(b) of Chapter V of Finance Act, 1994. The said notice has been addressed to the prospective customers of the petitioner viz., the Indian Oil Corporation and Bharat Petroleum Corporation proposing to deem them as “assesse-in-default” and to proceed against them. It is also contended that Ext.P16 Circular cannot have any valid existence, in view of the fact that the said Circular has already been declared as 'non-est' by various High Courts including as per the decision in Mangalam Cement Ltd. v. Superintendent, Central Excise Kota (rendered by the High Court of Rajasthan in D.B.Civil Writ Petition Nos.1624 of 2013 & connected cases).
4. Heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Central Excise Department, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Oil Companies and also the learned ASG.
5. The payments due to the petitioner came to be stalled and were refused to be effected, as evident from Ext.P15 dated 22.11.2014 issued by the Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd. This made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the writ petition.
6. The learned standing counsel appearing for the Central Excise Department submits that Ext.P14 was issued prior to the date of rendering Ext.P10 judgment and subsequently, the third respondent has given necessary intimation to the Oil Corporations that the instructions given as per Ext.P14 stand withdrawn. A copy of the letter bearing No.C.No.IV/16/67/2014 ST(Tech)Pt.1 dated 28.11.2014 issued in this regard is placed for consideration before this Court.
After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that no further orders are necessary since Ext.P14 is stated as withdrawn. The writ petition stands disposed of. All other issues are left open.
Stu P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON , JUDGE.
//True copy// P.A to Judge