IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2009 / 3RD BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 21857 of 2009(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ ASIANET SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS LTD., KARIMPANAL ARECADE, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP.BY ITS EXECUTIVE (LEGAL) MR.ALEX JOSE PAIKADA. BY ADV. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE SMT.MARIAM MATHAI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE & CUSTOMS REP.BY ITS DIRECTOR GENERAL NEW DELHI. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, IS PRESS ROAD, COCHIN-31. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1 SRI.JOHN VARGHESE,SC,CEN.BOARD OF EXCIS FOR R2-3 SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R1 SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOTTIL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 21857 OF 2009 (B) ===================== Dated this the 25th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner submits that it is a Multi System Operator and is providing cable TV signals, by drawing cables through the electric posts alloted to it by the 1st respondent. It is stated that Ext.P2 show cause notice was issued by the 3rd respondent calling upon the 1st respondent that it is a Business Support Service and hence is liable for payment of service tax. 2. According to the Board, it is not liable to pay service tax as demanded and on that basis, it is disputing the liability. Be that as it may, the Board required the petitioner by Ext.P3 to execute an agreement agreeing to discharge the liability, if and when, any such liability is crystalized. Petitioner submits that since the Board is disputing its liability and is not calling upon it to pay the service tax to the Board and it apprehends that in the event the remittance of tax is ultimately delayed, liability for interest and penalty will fall upon it. It is in these circumstances after making Ext.P4 representation to the Board expressing its willingness to pay the service tax, which was rejected by Ext.P5, WPC 21857/09 :2 : this writ petition is filed praying to direct the 1st respondent to receive the service tax from the petitioner for the pole rental paid by it to the Board. 3. The case was adjourned in order to enable the standing counsel for the 1st respondent to obtain instructions in this matter and today, it is reported that it has been decided by the Board to accept payment of service tax from the petitioner and pay it over to the Department under protest. Now that the Board has made its stand known as above, the grievance raised in this writ petition stands substantially redressed. 4. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing that it will be open to the Board to comply with the statutory prescriptions in this behalf and demand from the petitioner the service tax that is due, in which event, the petitioner shall pay the amount to the Board in discharge of its liability. Needless to say that this judgment shall be without prejudice to the contentions of the Board and the judgment does not reflect a decision on the merits of the controversy. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp