IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2011 / 7TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 10653 of 2011(F) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- SKY LINK CABLE NET WORK, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, NEAR KSEB, KATTUR, THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN-680702, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SHAIJA NAZAR, AGED 39, W/O.NAZAR, KATTUR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX, CALICUT, COMMISSIONERATE, C.R.BUILDING, MANAMCHIRA, CALICUT-673 001. 2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, THRISSUR DIVISION, THRISSUR.680 001 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE, IRINJALAKUDA RANGE, IRINJALAKUDA.PIN-680 121 4. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK OFFICE, IRINJALAKUDA.PIN-680 121 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KATTUR VILLAGE OFFICE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.680 702 R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.TOJAN J.VATHIKULAM,SC,C.B. EXCISE R4 & R5 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.10653/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE,DATED 18/8/06 AT THRISSUR. P2 COPY OF THE DECLARATION ALONG WITH CALCULATIONS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 29/9/08. P3 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 17/10/08 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. P4 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 23/10/08. P5 COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 4/3/2011 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P6 COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 18/3/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 10653 of 2011 ================== Dated this the 29th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a firm conducting business in conducting TV cable network services. The petitioner is liable to pay service tax for the services rendered by them to customers. Assessment orders have been passed in this regard and penalty was also imposed. In the meantime, the Government promulgated a scheme by name, “the Service Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2008”, under which, certain concessions are given to assesses for service tax. But, for the same, the assesses are required to file a declaration before 30.9.2008. The petitioner filed a declaration on 29.9.2008 before the office of the Irinjalakuda Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise. That was in turn forwarded to the office at Thrissur, from where, it was further forwarded to the office of the Commissioner at Calicut. The Commissioner's office received it on 3.10.2008. On the ground that the Commissioner's office received it beyond the date fixed in the scheme for filing the declaration, by Ext.P3, the 1st respondent rejected the declaration. Ext.P3 is under challenge in this writ petition. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner submitted the declaration before the Assistant Commissioner's Office at Irinjalakuda on 29.9.2008, which should be taken as the date of submission of the w.p.c.10653/11 2 declaration for the purpose of the scheme. 2. This is vehemently opposed by the learned Standing Counsel for the Central Board of Excise and Customs. He has also filed a statement opposing the contentions in the writ petition. He would submit that when the scheme prescribes that declaration shall be filed before the Commissioner on or before 30.9.2008, it is for the petitioner to see that the declaration reaches the Commissioner before that date and notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner has filed the declaration before the Assistant Commissioner at Irinjalakuda, the declaration is liable to be rejected as time barred. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. The Service Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme is not a statute. Admittedly, the petitioner has filed his declaration under the scheme before the Assistant Commissioner at Irinjalakuda before the due date. The delay occurred only on account of the Assistant Commissioner forwarding it to the Thrissur office and from the Thrissur office to the Commissioner's office at Calicut. I am of opinion that for the purpose of the scheme, the date of submission of the declaration before the Assistant Commissioner at Irinjalakuda can be taken as the date of submission of the declaration. Admittedly, the petitioner has submitted the declaration before the Assistant Commissioner at Irinjalakuda on 29.9.2008, ie. well within the time stipulated under the w.p.c.10653/11 3 scheme. Therefore, Ext.P3 order is unsustainable. Accordingly, Ext.P3 order is quashed. The appropriate authority under the Scheme shall consider the declaration filed by the petitioner as one filed within time and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with the scheme, as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge