IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2009 / 9TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1156 of 2009(K) --------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (MANUFACTURING & MARKETING) CORPORATION, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. 2. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL, DIRECTORATE OF CENTRAL EXCISE INTELLIGENCE, BANGALORE ZONAL UNIT, BANGALORE. 3. THE COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE, TRIVANDRUM COMMISSIONERATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SERVICE TAX GROUP C, ICE BHAVAN, PRESS ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM THOMAS,CGC,CENTRAL BOARD-EXC FOR R1 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 1156 OF 2009 K -------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th January, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Exts.P4 and P5. They are show cause notices issued by the second respondent. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is the Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation, which was originally established to deal with arrack and foreign liquor. The contention essentially raised by the petitioner is that the petitioner is not liable to pay service tax. Petitioner relies on Ext.P2 Judgment of this Court as also the Judgment of the Apex Court rejecting the Special Leave Petition against it. It is the case of the petitioner that the Authorities are being swayed by the Counter Affidavit filed by the Corporation before the Apex Court. It is the case of the petitioner that there were some mistakes and they were withdrawn by filing Ext.P7 Additional Counter Affidavit. It is the further case of the petitioner that merely because the WPC.1156/09 K 2 petitioner has committed mistake in certain averments in the original Counter Affidavit, it should not be bound by it, particularly as it is already explained its position by filing an Additional Counter Affidavit before the Apex Court. In short, the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner Corporation is not the agent, but is actually purchaser and it is the case that the petitioner was assessed to tax under the Tax Laws in the State. 2. I feel that Exts.P4 and P5 being show cause notices, it is not necessary for me to entertain this Writ Petition and instead, I relegate the petitioner to file its objections to Exts.P4 and P5 notices. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of relegating the petitioner to raise such objections as it is advised to. When the objections are filed, it will become the bounden duty of the Officer concerned to apply his mind to all the objections with an open mind and recall the notices if it is found that the notices were not warranted in the first place. Petitioner is granted a week's time from today to raise its objections. The proceedings pursuant to Exts.P4 and P5 will stand adjourned by WPC.1156/09 K 3 one week from today to enable the petitioner to file its objections to Exts.P4 and P5. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge