The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:
“i) declare that Ext.P4 proceeding issued by the 3rd respondent is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and further declare that the co-operative societies are not liable to pay service tax.
ii) call for the records leading to Ext.P4 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari.
iii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction to the competent authority to decide whether the petitioner society is liable to pay service tax or not and thereafter proceed further to call for the details of the account of the petitioner society.
iv) issue any other appropriate writ, order restraining the respondents from taking any coercive proceedings against the petitioner society pursuant to Ext.P4 proceedings demanding service tax against the petitioner society.”
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's establishment is a co-operative society registered under the relevant provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The contention of the petitioner is that, none of the activities being pursued by the petitioner society will come within the purview of Section 65(12)(v) of the Finance Act, so as to attract payment of any Service Tax. It is without any regard to the actual facts and figures and relevant provisions of law, that the petitioner was served with Ext.P4 proceedings dated 29.09.2014 issued by the 3rd respondent. It is stated that the petitioner has already submitted Ext.P1 reply in response to the notice issued by the 3rd respondent asking to produce the details of income of the Society for the period from 1.10.2013 to 31.03.2014. Reference is also made to Exts. P2 and P3 judgments as to the course to be pursued. As per the said verdicts, this Court directed the departmental authorities to consider the case projected by the persons like the petitioner herein, as to their liability to pay service tax and if the liability is upheld, to proceed with further steps for quantifying the same as well.
3. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that, pursuant to Exts.P2 and P3 judgments, the matter was considered by the competent authority and a finding was rendered holding that the activity pursued by the said society was very much within the purview of Service Tax net and accordingly, assessment was finalised and the liability was quantified, passing appropriate orders in this regard. A copy of the order dated 18.07.2014 in ORIGINAL No.88/2014/ST is placed for perusal of this Court (while considering similar issue in W.P.(C). No. 28713 of 2014).
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the question whether the petitioner's activities will come within the purview of 'TAX NET' is a matter to be considered with reference to the bye-laws and other records maintained by the Society in relation to the activities .
5. In the said circumstance, the petitioner is relegated to pursue the matter before the third respondent/Superintendent of Central Excise in response to Ext4 proceedings. The third respondent/Superintendent of Central Excise/competent authority shall consider the reply submitted by the petitioner by way of Ext.P1 and shall also hear the petitioner on the question of their liability to pay service tax; and if the liability is upheld, direction be given to the petitioner to produce further documents for quantification of the liability. The proceedings, as above, shall be finalised at the earliest, at any rate, within 'two months' from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the competent authority for further steps. All contentions are left open.
The writ petition is disposed of.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
kp/-