IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 29718 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.UNITED CONTRUCTION COMPANY, A PARTNERSHP FIRM, HAVING OFFICE IN VMC COMPLEX, WADAKKANCHERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER V.C.ELIAS, AGED 70 VARAPPATHKUZHIYIL HOUSE, KILLIMGALAM POST, CHELAKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, THRISSUR DIVISION, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR-680001. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE, THRISSUR II RANGE, THRISSUR. 3. THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, PALLITHAMAM BUILDINGS, THRISSUR. 4. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI. ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP,SC,COCHIN D.B FOR R3 SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, R1, 2, 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF AGREEMENT DT 28.11.05. P2 COPY OF SUMMONS DT 2.3.07. P3 COPY OF COMMUNICATION DT 27.3.07. P4 COPY OF REGISTRATION DT 30.3.07. P5 COPY OF DEMAND DT 29.3.07 P6 COPY OF CHALAN DT 30.3.07 P7 COPY OF LETTER DT 12.7.07 P8 O SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DT 4.10.07. P9 COPY OF REQUEST DT 7.7.08. P10 COPY OF SHOW CAUSE DT 15.7.08 P11 COPY OF COMMUNICATION DT 9.10.07. P12 COPY OF COMMUNICATION DT 26.7.08. // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 29718 OF 2008 K ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 17th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent. 2. Case of the petitioner in brief is as follows. The petitioner is a firm which had undertaken the work of effecting construction for the 3rd respondent. The petitioner came to be assessed to service tax under section 65 (25B) of Chapter 5 of the Finance Act, 1994. According to the petitioner, it is an indirect tax and it could be realised from the customer. Petitioner made a representation. Ext.P12 is the order passed. In Ext.P12, it is stated as follows. “ As per the papers cited above it is decided that the application from the contractor for reimbursing the service tax need not be considered.” 3. I would think that the decision does not address any of the issues raised and accordingly the matter is to be reconsidered. Ext.P12 is quashed. The 3rd respondent will take a fresh decision WPC.29718/08 : 2 : on the application filed by the petitioner adverting to the relevant issues within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE