IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2008 / 6TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 20449 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ K.A.NOWSHAD, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL KADER,KIZHAKKETHIL HOUSE, KUMMANAM.P.O, KOTTAYAM-686 035. BY ADV. SRI.ALIAS M.CHERIAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. HINDUSTAN NEWS PRINT LTD,NEWS PRINT NAGAR P.O, MAVELLOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER (WORKS), HINDUSTAN NEWSPRINT LIMITED NEWSPRINT NAGAR P.O.VELLOOR, KOTTAYAM-686 616. 3. JOINT COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS COCHIN COMMISSIONERATE, C.R.BUILDING I.S.PRESS ROAD, COCHIN-682 018. 4. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS COCHIN COMMISSIONERATE, C.R.BUILDING I.S.PRESS ROAD, COCHIN -682 018. 5. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE, KOTTAYAM DIVISION, KOTTAYAM. 6. SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE (PREVENTIVE), CENTRAL EXCISE, KOTTAYAM DIVISION, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R3 TO 6 SRI.ANIL .D.NAIR SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R1 & 2 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R1 & 2 SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI FOR R1 & 2 SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS FOR R1 & 2 SRI.ANIL D. NAIR FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No.20449 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner seeks a direction to the first respondent to pay either directly to the third respondent or to the petitioner the amount determined under Ext.P6 order and also seeks a direction to respondents 3 to 6 to take steps to recover the amount as determined under Ext.P6 order from the first respondent. A declaration is also sought that the payment of the entire amount by the petitioner including service tax, educational cess, penalty, interest etc., pursuant to Ext.P6 order shall be reimbursed to the petitioner by the first respondent. The further prayer is for a direction to respondents 3 to 6 not to take any further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P6 till the first respondent pays/reimburses the service tax or till the matter is decided by this court. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 besides the learned counsel for respondents 3 to 6. 3. Ext.P6 is an order by which the petitioner has been assessed to pay service tax. The claim of the petitioner is that under Ext.P1 contract entered into between the petitioner and respondents 1 and 2, if service tax is WPC.20449/2008. 2 applicable, it is payable by respondents 1 and 2. He would therefore claim a right to have the liability cast on him under Ext.P1 order being extinguished by respondents 1 and 2 under the specific terms of Ext.P1 contract. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 points out that the petitioner had infact preferred a statutory appeal against Ext.P1 order. This means that Ext.P6 is not yet final. In view of the fact that the petitioner has preferred an appeal and Ext.P6 has not yet attained finality, I think that the questions raised by the petitioner need not be considered in this writ petition. Leaving open the contentions of the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of by making it clear that it is open to the petitioner to approach this court, if need arises in future. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb